Not sure if you follow professional soccer, but the bottom tier teams are most dangerous when fighting to stay in top flight. That shows that stinking all year does not necessarily mean stinking even worse at the end of the year. When you give teams incentives to lose, they will lose. Give them incentives to win and develop players, and they will compete.
Yes, i'm a huge Chelsea FC fan (although right now they're testing my patience like nothing else).
You're talking about relegation here which would never work in the NHL (or NA sports) so I get what you're saying...but I don't have the feeling that teams like the Hawks/Blue Jackets/Sharks/Ducks and even our Habs were "intentionally" losing down the stretch.
They just suck...and some teams have to be at the bottom, just the way it goes.
This is why I actually agree with Bettman when he says that there's no tanking in the NHL...the current system doesn't explicitly reward tanking, so if you as an organization decide to make losing your organizational standard, you might be rewarded by picking 1st, but your odds are 18.5% and I don't think that's worth it personally to sabotage your entire organizational standards for...
See the NBA's draft lottery system is different...that DOES encourage tanking because the bottom 3 teams all have the same odds at picking 1st (and describing this year's prize, Victor Wembanyama, as "generational" might actually be selling him short) at 14% and the 4th worst team has a 12.5% chance, while the 5th worst team has a 10.5% chance.