I think the positives (no tanking) outweigh the negatives (being mired in mediocrity during a down draft cycle--which basically already happens). there's so much incentive to be bad right now; it hurts the game, imo. and the article worries about the rich getting richer...watch the trade deadline this year, when bad teams give up good players for cap relief and late, protected picks. besides, we had a situation where the pistons were in the conference championship (or was this right after they won it?) and had the 2nd pick in the strongest draft in a decade. that didn't do much to tip the balance.
I do wonder how you would negotiate trades of picks, though. would the stepien rule still exist? would they replace it with other "save you from yourself" rules, like "you can't trade more than three of your top 10 picks in a cycle" (thus, basically ever)?
the thing the article touches on that may be the deciding factor against is what fans buy into. several franchises have run solely on hope for several years. hell, Houston was that until last year, but their fans seemed largely blissfully ignorant of this fact, assured that things were going to get better, no matter what. what happens if you take that away? do fans stop supporting Utah? ironic, of course, given Utah's strategic tanking leading to their supposed superstars in the waiting being exposed in fairly grand fashion (hello, enes kanter).
I do think there are probably some less radical solutions that would make things a little better, though. the first would be evening the odds a bit in the lotto, such that being REALLY bad isn't worth that much over just being bad. still worth something--just not as much, probabilistically. the bigger, perhaps more important change would be to scale back the rookie "ownership". right now, if you hit on a high draft pick, you get to underpay the guy for several years, then hold RFA over his head for a while. essentially, you get, like, 7-8 years of service, half of which are below market value. on the other hand, if he busts, you can cut him at no cost after two years. fairly low risk, super high reward. this is why everyone tanks. if there were some way to renegotiate rookie contracts earlier, teams wouldn't place such a premium on high picks, imo.
more irony, though: high picks lose their value almost immediately after they're made--unless you've nabbed a superstar. think about how much the #2 pick in the draft would have cost in trade prior to the draft two years ago. think about what derrick Williams just got traded for. or what Anthony Bennett would get traded for right now.