Their fans would have no hope without those picks though. All 3 of those GM's have big ownership interference problems as the plausible reason for hanging on to their jobs and continued loserness.
I think superteams are boring so I like the parity measures.
Parity is fine. It's the 1:1 ratio of reversing the last season's standings that's an issue. It makes it functionally way worse to be a competitive team coming up short than just absolutely sucking, and it ruins the fan experience. So you get these boom-and-bust cycles for teams on the extreme fringes (Pittsburgh, Chicago, Tampa, L.A., etc.) while good-faith middle class teams get repeatedly punished. Unless a team gets terrible injury luck for a year and then the standings are thrown out of whack anyway and the draft rewards don't even reflect the true level of need.
And that's sort of my main complaint: if you're really trying to throw a lifeline to the most helpless teams, use
more than just the most recent season as your benchmark, so you get a fairer view of "need" and not just the randomness of a single season as the basis to hand out the top talent in the game.
The whole rest of the world over you have promotion/relegation and a meaningful regular season to make you as a fan be able to cheer on your team in good faith in all circumstances.