Latest anti-tanking proposal would be an absolute disaster for teams like Spurs

As NBA All-Star break comes to a close, talk about possible draft reform is still heating up. Commissioner Adam Silver gave some fascinating answers when asked about potential changes to the NBA Draft over All-Star weekend.

These answers could potentially have an impact on the San Antonio Spurs. One potential option drew plenty of interest online, with him being open to abolishing the NBA draft altogether.

That seems like a bridge too far, though it is something that some analysts have called for for years. Admittedly, I've been intrigued by the idea of the NBA ditching the draft and going with a mini free agency for rookies.

The obvious concern would be that it would give big-market teams, such as the New York Knicks and the Los Angeles Lakers, the opportunity to land top prospects. However, that likely wouldn't be how this would work if it does become a reality.

More likely, Silver will limit the free agent process to lottery teams, eliminating that concern.

Abolishing the NBA draft could hurt the Spurs

The Spurs obviously aren't a lottery team and don't project to be one for hopefully the next decade. Nevertheless, they should be playing close attention to a potential rule change. After all, they own a pick swap from the Atlanta Hawks this year and an unprotected first in 2027.

This possible rule change likely wouldn't take effect until 2027 at the earliest, if ever. No draft means that it could impact where that 2027 Hawks pick ends up falling. Remember, the Spurs traded their own 2027 first-round pick, believing that the ATL pick would be a lottery selection.

My best guess is that the NBA opts for smaller measures. It seems far-fetched that the majority of owners would agree to such a drastic change without trying to tweak the current system.

I could see small market teams such as the Utah Jazz, Portland Trail Blazers, and Indiana Pacers being against top prospects choosing their teams. Let's be honest, would a top prospect choose to play in Utah when they could play in Brooklyn or Washington, D.C.?

Small and mid-market teams mostly build through the draft, and such an overhaul would potentially widen the disparity between those markets and larger cities. Instead of getting rid of the 79-year-old draft, the league should instead consider better, less drastic options.

The NBA has better, less drastic draft reform options

One option is to give the teams with the seven worst records equal odds for the number one pick. Also, the NBA may limit the number of times a franchise can draft the top three in a three-year span.

Had that second rule been in place, the Spurs wouldn't be in a position to draft Stephon Castle and Dylan Harper. Too bad, at least for the rest of the NBA.

Another draft rule change could be to invert the second round. That would see the league's best teams actually pick in the '30s while the worst teams pick in the '50s.

That would help the NBA's best teams add young and cheap talent. Doing so would allow them to avoid going into the first or second apron to keep players that they can't easily replace.

That particular world chance would have a more immediate impact for the Spurs, who own all of their second-round picks going forward.

Ultimately, Silver appears to be dead set on fixing tanking. Be that as it may, the idea of abolishing the draft is a bridge too far and could not only hurt the Spurs but also hurt other smaller market teams too.