Surely he means a draft for the bigger teams to poach from the smaller ones?

If you're a top college player, like a Harry Froling, would you come to the NBL, if it means you're going to get thrown to the team who finished last the year before, and has no money, so is going to give you the minimum? Or would you say bugger that, and go play overseas somewhere instead?
There's only 9 teams, with 10 or 11 roster spots. It's not like NBA, where they have 30 teams, and 15 roster spots, and a G League team, and the ability to stash their 2nd rounders overseas. And there's 100s of quality players in the pool to choose from.
We get a handful of new players to the league each year. Some of those are promoted from the Development list, and others are college players. There's also no set value for what a young player earns. There's a minimum, but a college player is going to be on more than that, from the team that recruits them.

Corey suggests lots of things.

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig...
"We're looking to expand the Next Stars program"
as opposed to "we fucked it up this season"

I can only think that by "draft" he's thinking of allocating players contracted by the league as Next Stars.
There's no other way it works.
Aside form the impracticality, drafts are illegal in Australia. That's why there is no draft in the NRL.
(and the NBL lacks the power of the AFL)

Now G League can recruit direct players don't need the Next Stars or similar programs to avoid college

The irony of the Sixers biggest announcement so (at a time the want us all to renew our season tickets) is that NB hasn't announced it anywhere, so is it even official? Surely they weren’t trying to con us with that big announcement?!

Harry Froling was a top college player. Thanks for the chuckles!

"So if drafts are illegal in Australia how come the AFL have one like you mentioned"

Because nobody has challenged it.
(Like many things under C&C law, there is no policeman, its up to individuals to use the law in Civil Actions.)

It is illegal, because it is Restraint of Trade against the individual player.
So it would require an individual player (or players) to take action in Federal Court. Obviously no young player has the money, and even for a wealthy player the reality is that they wouldn't do it without the backing of a club.

To date, no club has been willing to take on the AFL. Probably because (whilst they might get peeved over a particular player occasionally) they are happy with the system, and nobody wants to completely destroy the system and be stuck with complete Free Agency.

Also keep in mind that the AFL has a stranglehold on the clubs. Individual clubs don't even own their own brands or IP, and the AFL controls a massive war chest courtesy of the TV rights.

No Victorian club, and no expansion club is going to challenge the draft because it works to their advantage.
Unrestricted Free Agency might work to the advantage of the Eagles, because it might give them better access to local talent, and they are the wealthiest club. But they are owned by the WAFC, and they are not going to fight the AFL. Crows would be in a similar scenario, but I'm not sure who owns them now. (IIRC whilst they operate as an independent club, their licence is now held by the AFL??)

Homicide talking about nate Robinson....no thanks

I'd watch Nate Rob play.

Wouldn’t expect him to be a league leader, but he’d draw a bunch of interest for sure. More positive than negative for Adelaide, unless he gets paid a ransom and utterly bombs.

Homicide said the player in question is from Chicago. Robinson is from Seattle.
Possibly Will Bynum