AROUND the NBA:

[cow]

You make a good point, but I don't know if reducing it to no Top 4 picks in back-to-back years will be enough of a deterrent. Look at the picks the Spurs got in the last 3 years... #1, #4, #2. It is not a whole lot different than no Top 4 picks in back-to-back years.

I think the 4-years solution mentioned above strikes a good balance that will limit the number of teams who are actively tanking. If they do this in conjunction with taking the average of 2-years standings, it could be even better. This seems to be the most that can be done to provide equal opportunity without trying to manipulate an equal outcome... know what I mean? Teams will still be able to get a Top 5 pick and above (which is nothing to sneeze at), and will have to do a better job of scouting, drafting and developing players.

Not being able to get another Top 4 pick for some years also prevents the NBA from fixing the draft to keep teams they want at the top, or to reward teams who tow the company line... which should be a very important consideration to owners and fans of small market teams.

I like the idea a bunch, I just think it needs tweaking.  Maybe the lockout period is applied to any team getting top x picks in back-to-back years and then the total of those picks gets applied the arbitrary number.  

Just spit balling and assuming you want to "protect" those top 4 picks:

If your total value of your back-to-back picks is 2-5 (any value that can have at least #1) gets the team locked out for four years.  If your total value is 6-8, the team gets locked out for three years.  

You could also adjust the length of the lock out to five and four years and/or adjust which picks are "protected" (and if that's increased, possibly create another tier of lockout period).

I'm probably overthinking the heck out of this.