You're non-traditional markets may be unimportant now, but those are the teams with some of the best young talent in the league. Some of the most successful teams in the league over the next decade will be those in question, and as a result I do feel they are important to the overall health of the league.
As for the cap number of $45 million, that is certainly much higher than GB first said he was going after that many months ago ($31); the entire idea behind the lockout was to get a cap number that would allow all 30 teams to survive and remain "relatively" equal. There will always be spending differences; your Rangers/Wings/Flyers teams will always be in "salary cap trouble" whereas your smaller markets might have $10 million in room. The idea behind this lockout was to ensure that fact; with a cap at $45 million, I honestly don't think the small market teams could be within striking distance and might fall 15-20 million behind.
That is the major problem here. We want a cap, but we can't have it so big that it doesn't have that great of an effect. There can't be a $20 million salary difference between teams, otherwise this entire lockout is all for naught. It would be very similar to what we have witnessed over the past few years.
I don't think the small-market teams should dominant the league. No individual teams should for that matter. This is a complete league filled with 30 teams. For the sport to grow, it is essential that the league maintains its 30 teams and (eventually) add more. That's the only way more kids will play the game; that is the only way more fans are turned into followers.
While I really want to see hockey, I can definitely see why the $45M won't fly. I think we will end up just around $40M and that extra five million is enormous IMO.
Of course, just my opinion. Take it for what you will.