you're assuming consequential players trying to make the league are going to prioritize geography and/or glamor status of the franchise? i think they want to pick the place most likely to afford future success as a basketball player. one could also argue that it would make sense that if the money is the same, players would want to play near home/family, too, right? anyway, i'd argue that in many cases, a crap team might provide more of a shot at becoming an nba player. in any case, i don't think you can make rules that make los angeles or the lakers franchise less appealing without applying unfairly regressive practices to the contracts, such as... no other business operates this way. again, they could have made more legitimate offers if they want someone so badly. if detroit wanted austin reaves, they could have told his agent they'd have a real contract available. and what are these penalties? a cap on future contracts?! players' association would smash that to bits. i think if this was happening a) with regularity and b) in the first round or the lotto, you'd see more efforts to counteract it. as it stands, the rule would have to be called the "austin reaves" rule, as it's the only time it's ever had a consequential outcome that i can remember. the draft rules have done a good job preventing something like tim duncan holding out of the draft to become a boston C bag or something like this. it's not worth the effort to do this on guys who are late seconds/udfas.