I have to disagree with you on the better players getting more money thing. A player like Roenick should get 8 million if he can. If he choses to work for less, that's his business.
However, if you take the premise that a "defensive" forward in this league should make 3 mil per, that's a stretch.
It would be better if those 8-12 guys in the 2-4 range had their salaries pared backk a bit. You already have a rookie minimum, a league minimum and some fairly decent free agency rules. If you took that extra money and tried to lure some more marquee players, you'd fill seats every night. Roenick is actually a good example.
In Philly, you have Roenick, Rechhi, Primeau, Dejardins and a great younger player in Gagne. If you took, for example, half a mil from Claude Lapointe, another half a mil from Chris Therien and did the same to a two other second-tier players, you could now give Gagne that money and keep him in Philly when his contract is up. He has nothing but upside and is definately not "rental" material. Would you rather keep one of the more exciting players in the league, who's just starting his career for the sake of another mediocre player or two? I say Gange is worth more to Philly that three Claude Lapointes or two Chris Theriens, wouldn't you?
Another stupid thing, for example, is the clause in Scott Steven's contract (from NJ) which states that he will ALWAYS be the highest paid player on the team, unless he gives the Devil's permission to pay someone else. Clauses like this are routinely placed in player's contracts.
When the Devils wanted to resign Martin Broduer a couple of years ago, they had to go to Stevens and get permission to make Brodeur the highest paid player. Fortunately, Stevens being the guy he is, said "no problem" and Brodeur got his money. I believe Mark Messier had a similar deal with the Rangers and Bure had it in Florida. Sorta kinda ties a GM's hands when he does have the cash and can't spend it because of egos.
The problem is the league doesn't make enough money to support that price tag. This is one of the big problems of the NHL's arbitration system, when you have teams like the Rangers over paying players can demand more money than they're worth and if their team won't give it to them they can go to arbitration and the lawyer will tell the team to pay them more. It's not just Roenick's business, I mean he's no dummy if somebody offers him more than he thinks he's worth he should sign, what the heck it's their money. But when you look at he comparative revenue streams the NHL simply shouldn't have an $8 million players, the league doesn't make enough money to support that pay scale.
And like I said, pay scales work from the top down, if the top players are worht $8 mil then the second teir players are clearly worth at least half that, and the 3rd line guys should be pulling down $2 mil. There's no way to get those 8-12 guys below the $2 mil mark if the marquee guys are making $8.
The pay scale your proposing is exactly the system they have now. Think about it this way, at each step down in talent (which in hockey is easily mapped as a step down on the line chart) halves the players salary, and your marquee (line one) guys are worth $8 mil, then your line 2 guys get $4 mil and line 3 gets $2. The only way to keep that second teir lower than $2-4 mil is to drop the marque guys below 8.