This thread has been derailed by a strange argument. You're both wrong: on the one hand, salary is not the only predominant factor in determining a player's overall 'importance;' on the other hand, salary is one soft-indicator of how much a team value's a particular player.
In the case of Shea Weber, neither logic really prevails, however. In his case, and almost all other cases, salary reflects what Weber is taking away from the team (in terms of opportunity costs) rather than what he is contributing to it. Simultaneously, the salary itself was not determined by team management anyways (but rather through arbitration), and thus, is no indication whatsoever of the player's perceived value to a club (other than the fact that the Predators chose to match the arbitrator's decision).
But I'm not really sure why we're discussing Weber's contract in this thread to begin with...