This will probably (but no guarantees:D) be the last I say on this. Its just turned into a longer conversation than I planned on having but:
are you sure? There are just as many teams/GMs who will always take the best player available over drafting for need. Its a big assumption to think teams will consistently draft for need. (and honestly I think thats probably the biggest draft day fau paux there is). Regardless those were just examples and the point was that if all the prospects end up on a few teams, they will just be competing with each other for minutes instead of competing with vets for minutes. Either way there is no guarantee said player(s) will get the minutes the 'need'.
Teams would not be using their top draft picks to draft another PG if they have Paul or Wall
they already are. This would just prevent the 'good' teams from making good or smart decisions with their picks (or atleast make it harder for them to do so by making their first available pick worse) and making it more affordable for the 'bad' teams to make poor decisions.
All the more highly touted prospects would be on lottery teams
but thats a function of economics (Sarver trying to use team profits to pay for his losing investments elsewhere) and the cap system (having limited funds/taxes etc), not because a team just didn't feel like having a player or because they felt the players weren't worth paying. Regardless one example of a team not using their late first round pick does not mean teams do not want or do not try to use those picks to improve their team.
(Phoenix) who did not want guaranteed contracts of rookie contracts
They don't say different. That was just a referrence to your statement that players would just waste on the bench on a good team. For some players being on a 'good' team is better for them.
Your previous paragraph and example says different. Look at Jordan Crawford with Atlanta compared to Washington. Look at Darren Collison when Paul was injured last year. All players learn differently but there is no other learning experience like actual playing time.
And actually Collison is a great example of what I was getting at. He played fantastic in NO even if it was in limited and injury minutes. But he still got playing time in NO because he proved he deserved it. When an opportunity came up he made use of it and (more or less) forced NOH to either make use of him as a player or as an asset, and in the end he earned himself a starting job. One could argue Crawford showed enough potential for Washington to want him on their team. Players who are good enough will always get an opportunity. Some one will want them. The problem with players not 'turning out' is never a function of them not getting a chance, its them not being good enough.
fine if you say so, but is the reason they are stuck in the lottery year in and year out because they didn't have enough picks? Or was it because they choose players poorly, made poor decisions along the way and/or lost their quality players? I can't think of one team that has been bad "year in and year out" that hasn't had a crap load of lottery picks. Thats not the draft systems fault, thats the teams fault (and on occasion simple bad luck).
This is stemming from watching teams stuck in the lottery year in and year out
I see no reason to think that the 76ers or Pacers have shown an unwillingness to build a contender. They have each done it in the past decade or so already... and both have a good NBA history. Both have shown a willingness to spend and have made sound decisions. They weren't ready to yet be playoff teams, BUT were (as I said before) the best of the worst. They are where they are by a function of everyone around them getting worse, not them getting better. This new system will now punish them (even more) for not being bad enough. The solution then? Intentionally tank to make sure you don't make the playoffs? Blow it up and start over? Yet Indiana has a young team. Philly has a young team. But now they would have to start all over because they were too good (and I use that term loosely) to quick? They are nothing like Charlotte in structure, but would end up with Charlotte's results regardless.
The 76ers and Pacers are built for mediocrity. The only hope they have of getting better is if a franchise player falls in to their lap in the middle of the first round which is possible but highly unlikely.
why? did they not get a fair opportunity to draft? Was their problem they needed more first round picks and yet OKC, Portland, Chicago, Utah didn't? Do Kings fans or warriors fans complain about the draft process or do they complain about what their organization did along the way? Did the league force the Kings to draft Jason Thompson instead of McGee, Ibaka, Batum or Hibbert? Did the league force GSW to draft Udoh over Greg Monroe, Paul George or Ed Davis? (in fairness to Udoh it is just a rookie season) Were they forced to take O'Bryant instead of Rondo, Milsap or even Sefolosha?
Ask a Kings fan or a Warriors fan
We need to get beyond this idea there is a problem with the draft system. That somehow it isn't fair enough to teams who already get the best opportunity. Yes sometimes teams get unlucky with their timing or an injury. This system still won't change luck. Yes sometimes teams consistently make bad choices. This new system won't change that either. What this will do however is take away an already limited opportunity from a team that has made good use of their resources to become successful and give that to a team that already has a better opportunity to draft a better player but hasn't made good use of their resources.
A new draft system won't create parity because the cause of disparity is NOT due to the draft. What it will do is create an even bigger division between the very good and very bad teams every year (although the change over will be quicker) No one will want to be stuck in the middle because thats where you get punished the most. Yet the more teams in the middle the greater the parity is.
There are more than a few things that need to be done to change the NBA, whether its for fairness, equal opportunity, parity, whatever. But the draft is not one of them. It is an already fair and equitable system.