I like the sound of that. No carryover, just a tiny bit extra as a reward. Good suggestion, IMO.

I have a different take on this. First punishing any team that comes in last is not the solution because somebody always comes in last. Rewarding teams that finish with better records is not the solution because they are not the problem.

So what is the issue. Look at draft history is for 10 seasons.

 Team 1: 28th,19th,22nd,16th,9th,12th,7th,15th,14th, 20th

Team 2: 10th, 5th, 2nd, 4th, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 12th, 9th, 3rd

Team 3: 1st, 5th, 12th,14th, 3rd, 9th, 15th, 19th, 12th,18th

Team 1 is not a problem but team 2 is tanking. Team 3 who knows maybe they just are not too good but nothing obvious.

3 things should be tied to teams consistently losing. FA signings, IFA's willingness to sign and Draft picks willing to sign. Base it on the past 5 seasons draft history

FA's is easy. Make it 1 of the things a FA considers draft history for the past 5 seasons The more top 10 picks the harder it is to sign FA's. It should outweigh ballpark effects and coach effects. The worse you are the more money you will need to sign FA's. This won't solve much in itself since the guy who is tanking won't care about FA's but it does give some small reward to the other teams in the league and helps prevent the I'm not tanking I'm just not trying to win since I'm out of it.

When IFA's are generated their should be teams they will not play for and it should be based on the previous 5 seasons draft position. Again look at how many seasons with a top 10 pick.

For instance team #2 in season 7 should have a hard time signing any IFA after all they have had a top 5 draft pick in seasons 2 through 6. They should still see them based on Int Scouting but the best ones should respond with "I do not want to play for a franchise that does not try to win."

Team #3 should have a few of the top IFA's respond that way since they had a top 10 pick in seasons 2, 5 and 6 but in season 8 they should get fewer IFA's refusing to play for them since they would only have 2 seasons with a top 10 pick out of the last 5 seasons. 

Team #1 should have no IFA refuse to sign in season 7 since his only top 10 draft pick was in season 5 but in season 8 there should be a small chance he may get that message from a player since he had 2 top 10 picks in season 5 and 7.

Draft picks could respond 2 ways
1) Any and all draft picks that are in the top 15 should respond the same way as IFA's. The worse you are the less chance they, and any comp pick you get, will sign. . 

2) The top 20 or so OAV (I know it is not the best way to judge a player but the sim has to use something) can have listed somewhere I will noy play for the following teams. it would be different for each player. 

That's all very good, but I don't agree with the draft part. FA and IFA suggestions are great though.

The draft part may be the most important part. The players you draft are the biggest reward you get for tanking. FA and IFA's are crapshoots where you may be outbid anyway.

I know, but I don't like the how of it, not the why.

True but if team 2 had little to no chance of his picks signing in seasons 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 signing then they would stop tanking in season 3 or 4. Any other methods punish teams that should not be punished.

This is true too. So let me offer a tweak.

When a new owner takes over the team, they are not penalized for the previous owner's tanking. If after season 7, CoachA leaves team 2, and CoachB takes over, than B would not have to deal with the consequences of A's tanking. 

Or would he? Which would be better? Obviously, this is a tard world, just because of what happened to team 2, so should B be forced to deal with the mess A made? I'm inclined towards allowing a fresh start for each new owner, but I want to hear where others stand.

Minimum win rules.

Anybody doing this "5th, 2nd, 4th, 1st, 3rd, 1st" ain't making it.

1) It would be pretty hard to fill a team that was the worst team in the world the previous season (without tanking) and had the #10 pick.  You can't be punitive to teams that weren't tanking but were just bad.  Bad owner runs team into ground, "earns" a bunch of top-10 picks (not intentionally).  Talent goes south.  After 6 seasons of frustration, he's stuck in a trap- punished in the present for having sucked in the past, causing sucking in the present leading to punishment in the future.  So he quits.  New owner comes in, has a poor ML team, and a poor farm.  By the time the roster is turned around somewhat, the new owner has posted multiple bad seasons, causing punishments, leading to more sucking, and the cycle starts over.  

2) You don't want to set up a situation where honest owners in the middle of the pack start tanking late.  If 10th is picking 1st, 1st is picking 10th, 11th is picking 20th, and 20th is picking 11th, then guys who have been trying all year, but find themselves in the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th positions after 140 games, have an EXTREME incentive to tank the last 5 series.  If you look up and see yourself 12th (19th pick), the reward for getting to 10th (#1 pick) are so great that it would be almost neglegent NOT to tank.  At which point the guys who are doing there best, and in the 8th, 9th, 10th positions are CERTAINLY going to respond by counter-tanking.

Let private worlds have private rules.  Different rules for different worlds, find one you like (be it MWR, some sort of committee, a requirement that you make the playoffs every X number of years).  Let public worlds keep to their own devices.  Don't creat perverse incentives, or make genuinely bad teams that have been abandoned harder to fill.

It doen't really matter since all of this is as effective as ******* up a rain pipe. They are not going to make any changes like these.

Well, "draft lottery" has a chance, not sure sure about you get the 13th pick if your mom's name is Helga and you're left handed

Snowball's chance in hell.

I say stick to CBA, and keep a tanking win floor.