We are having a mature discussion and I have acknowledged some of the good points you have raised but you are crapping on about one point that is not relevant. A draft spreads the talent and the examples I gave have shown it spreads the talent. I'm not sure what your point is going on and on about the teams that have had high draft picks and then not won championships? The best understanding I can get is that you're trying to say the draft doesn't do a good enough job of spreading the talent. Surely it is better than not having a draft at all when there would be no spread of talent at all?? You say there was no way but up for those clubs - umm they could stop existing and that is a serious proposition for the NRL clubs in a similar position.
You say the Bulls are the standout there but I would say (based on gut feel rather than hard data) that the Cavaliers' acquisition of LeBron had more of an impact than the Bulls picking up Rose.
All of those things you talk about around the interest of scouting, watching, analysing players before being drafted came about because of the draft. A decade from now maybe the NRL has all of those things around it's draft (to scale of course).
All I know is there is a massive problem facing the NRL right now about how best to spread the talent of players. The NYC hasn't worked - most clubs want it gone. The top sides assemble sides twice as good as the bottom sides now (maybe not five years ago but they do now) but somehow spend the same money on those players - how? There is no way you can reduce the cap with more money coming into the game than ever before. TPAs are a problem but the players won't allow them to be removed, they will hardly go back on something they reverted to just a few seasons ago. So how do you spread the talent evenly?
A draft looks the best option at this point.
TPAs are the problem, I don't think tampering with them per se` is the cure, because it is inevitable to be unenforceable. There are two options. One, which is very much impossible to police (although I think I have heard some sports do it), all payments whether they be direct or TPAs are paid via the NRL who then account for their value, and from there, similar to the US you get a luxury tax for going over - clubs then can't afford to keep doing it. Hard to control, and I don't like it because it is still open to fraud. The second I think is that the NRL analyses the relevant economic worths of each club - so, for example, Canberra. Small market, hard to attract TPAs, at a distinct disadvantage. The NRL estimates that the Roosters for example have an extra $2m of TPAs than Canberra can access, so Canberra are given an extra $2m that they are to spend. As long as the financial metrics are transparent, it has the potential (and I say potential but no system, not even a draft is fullproof nor can we fully foresee how it would work) to create equity.
Sadly, I think the crapping on comment has gone on long enough FWIW (you for some reason wish to keep repeating it). Whilst I enjoyed this debate up until now, it is getting somewhat immature so I will be letting you debate this one on your own for here out. All the best.