2 words: competitive balance.
It's the entire purpose of the draft.
Only one way to fix that:
better superstars need to be produced.
if the average team had more of a shot at the early picks, it wouldn't pay to be a low seeded playoff team
Sucky teams being guaranteed first crack at top players doesn't always=competitive balance. Beyond that there is absolutely nothing balanced about the NBA competitively and there never has been. I think the current draft structure only contributes to that. You have teams that are in the lottery every year. At a certain point your org just sucks and mabye someone who knows what they are doing should get a crack at the top talent. Certain orgs know how to pick and develop talent and certain orgs don't. The only way for an org to truly come up is to make good choices consistently (OKC, Indy, Portland). Throwing young talent or the first shot at young talent at an org, in and of itself, has never turned anything around (see Minnesota, Sacremento, Cavs, the old Clippers and Mavs).
There are only so many true superstar basketball players out there. There just isn't enough talent to support 30 NBA teams. If they aren't going to address that then they might as well let some of the better run orgs get more chances at top players and vice versa.
It's pretty easy to be an average NBA team. If you can't put an average product out on the floor then you either truly suck as an org or you are tanking. Either way you don't deserve top talent to just be sat in your lap. You give average teams more of a shot and you will see more teams trying to at least put up a fight throughout the season. You would see more teams actually trying to make moves to better their team other than waiting for the young superstar to fall in their lap. You would see far more teams like PHX and BOS and ATL which are the perfect landing spots for a young superstar.
Last edited: