I wonder if this was some short term thinking by some teams. Obviously Philly, but think about:
Chicago/Sacramento
Sacramento owes Chicago a top 10 protected pick over the next 3 years that then turns into a 2nd rounder. Sacramento who could finish out of the bottom 10, votes yes to increase the odds of them moving into the top 10, Chicago votes no to increase the odds of keeping Sacramento’s pick in the 11-14 range.
Phoenix/LAL
Lakers owe Phoenix a top 5 protected pick next year. Lakers voting yes increases the odds of them being able to keep this year’s pick by moving into the top 5, Phoenix voting no increases the odds of landing the Lakers pick this year, by keeping it in the 6-14 range.
Houston/NO
New Orleans owes Houston a top 3 protected pick this year. Houston voting yes increase the odds of New Orleans moving up to the 4-10 range up from the 10-14 range.
Now not that I think this is why some teams voted the way they did (especially the Lakers), and I’m sure there are plenty of ways to poke holes in this idea, but it makes for an interesting conspiracy theory. Especially when it comes to Sacramento’s yes vote, and Chicago and Phoenix’s no vote.
Really I'm surprised by Phoenix and Utah, as those 2 teams have never really tanked (at least in my eyes), with neither team finishing with fewer than 25 wins in the last 30 years. I would think teams like that would definitely benefit from the change.