It is certainly a frequent topic of discussion on the Oiler board and has been a frequent topic on the main board as well over the years
I think you are missing my point concerning my comment about "taking money out of others pockets". In fact, every additional dollar one player takes in nominal salary literally does take money out of everyone else's pockets. This is simply basic math as each individual's relative share of the pot decreased with each dollar of increased nominal salary. Of course the actual magnitude of that decrease will be small on a per player basis, but the point is the argument that stars taking more floats everyone's boat is simply false. Moreover beyond the collective impact their can and have been many instances where higher star's salaries have significantly impacted individuals in ways such as RFA's not being qualified or forced to take hits to their pay to fit stars demands in, and to vets that are priced out of the market totally.
Hypothetically, if McDavid was to push for the max at roughly $18M for example or if he was to take a discount of say $13.5M which is better for the NHLPA. The additional $4.5M in salary that McDavid gets nominally has to come out of the fixed pot. Where would that come from if not from the share that every other player gets. Moreover, that additional cap space would have significant consequences for other players on the Oilers including almost surely resulting in player movement, lower salaries for RFA's and some players possibly losing their jobs all together. How does that benefit the NHLPA?
Again, the narrative is based on the belief that all unions see it as being in their best interest to have one segment of their bargaining group push for as much as possible with the belief that this will increase the rewards for everyone else. In this respect the NHLPA's relationship with its employer is very unusual. I am not claiming that the NHLPA would take an active role in discouraging individual players from negotiating larger contracts. Just that the argument that they should take an active role in encouraging it has no merit either.
I'm not missing your point at all, I just don't agree that it's as simple as you portray it. The real argument that McDavid's new salary takes money out of other player's pockets is that it potentially increases the amount over the midpoint that teams are spending. And that, in turn, potentially changes how much the players get back from their escrow withholding. But at least for now, escrow is capped as it is and the limiter on salary cap increases further prevents there from being much impact from it.
I don't think the NHLPA is against player movement for larger salaries where teams have cap room. And it's not going to push anyone out of the league because rosters still need to be filled. Players can make their own choices in this regard, but no one whose main goal is to maximize dollars is accepting a minimum range contract with the Oilers if there's someone offering more.
In regards to RFAs, forcing a player into lower dollar short term bridge deals ultimately increases a player's career earnings. Compare these two scenarios:
Age 20: 3 x $0.925m + Age 23: 3 x $3m + Age 26: 8 x $8m + Age 34: 3 x $4m = $87.775m career earnings
vs
Age 20: 3 x $0.925m + Age 23: 8 x $6.5m + Age 31: 6 x $5m = $84.775m career earnings
The NHLPA isn't necessarily doing a bad thing for the players by pushing higher salaries in UFA forcing more players into bridge deals. Players like to take the second scenario because of the risk of injury before they've had a chance at a lot of earnings, but it's a conscious sacrifice of some career earnings to hedge against that risk.