Update: The NHL lockout ended in July, with a six-year collective bargaining agreement. For the details see:
But whether this would give more teams a chance to compete for the Stanley Cup is far less certain.
Recent evidence suggests the NHL already has as much competitive balance as a 30-team league can reasonably expect. In the last three years, a dozen teams have made it as far as the Conference Finals, within eight victories of winning the Stanley Cup. The wealthy New York Rangers have failed miserably, and other big-budget teams like Toronto, Philadelphia and Dallas have fallen short of expectations.
The NHL argues that such short-term results are misleading. Cheap one-year wonders like Calgary (2004) and Anaheim (2003) come and go. But the teams that win consistently tend to have huge payrolls - teams like Detroit and Colorado. Without a meaningful salary cap, the league will always be divided into haves and have-nots.
The experience of other pro leagues suggests that salary caps come with their own problems.
In the NBA, teams looking to make trades or sign free agents often find their hands tied because they have no room under the salary cap.
In the NFL, strict payroll limits force teams to cut good, talented players every year. For fans who have seen a favorite star leave town or watched a great team broken up for salary cap reasons, the cap is little more than a form of enforced mediocrity. It's a system that punishes teams for drafting and developing well, and for winning.
An NHL salary cap would likely be accompanied by more liberal free agency, which would mean a lot more roster instability. Under such a system, the slash-and-burn approach of the 2004 Boston Bruins - they went into the summer with just six regulars under contract - might be commonplace. But some teams might prefer this flexibility.
