I think this is exactly why it isn't done out in the open - aside from being impossibly boring TV. They could still document the whole thing to debunk the theories and put it on NBA.com where it doesn't have to be good tv. But think of what would happen. People would go over it frame by frame and find that many more things to dispute.
What really needs to happen, is a shift away from placing so much emphasis on franchise players that get locked in place for as long as possible, to placing the most emphasis on building strong teams and allowing for greater player movement to make that feasible for any team with a solid plan. Then all of this becomes less important, and the sense of victimization is far less dramatic. There was a time when picks 1-3 would be traded without a second thought. Now - the way the CBA is structured, there's just now way it happens. Selling the one predominant talent is all that matters, arguably more than winning, although "the star" and "winning" have become one-in-the-same in the way the game gets sold anyhow, so that is a difficult argument to make. Just the way those two ideas have converged shows how too much emphasis gets placed on something like winning the lottery. Fans don't benefit in the end (unless they like feeling victimized, and some do wear that like a badge of honor), most star players don't benefit (since they could be so much better as part of well-constructed teams), and owners and GMs end up relying far too much on shit that is out of their control so it's hard to see where they couldn't be benefitted from a change.
Of course there is no change coming, and every year we will hear the same outcries until it becomes hard to care anymore.