The problem is people conflate tanking with getting a 1 or 2 overall pick in a year that has a moderately generational player, which has the effect of ignoring all the teams who have a shotgun's blast worth of top picks spanning a decade plus to little actual effect on the franchise.
It's not just 'but Edmonton' and 'but Phoenix'. It's 'but Columbus' (1, 4, 8, 6, 6, 7, 6, 4, 2, 8, 3). It's 'but Nashville' (2, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 4). It's 'but the Islanders' (2, 6, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 7, 1, 5, 5, 4, 5). It's 'but the Senators' (2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 6, 4). It's 'but the Flyers' (4, 6, 7, 4, 2, 8, 2). It's 'but San Jose' (2, 3, 2, 6, 2, 2, 3, 6, 8). It's 'but Toronto' (4, 1, 6, 7, 6, 3, 8, 5, 7, 5, 8, 4, 1). Vancouver, Winnipeg, Buffalo, yadda yadda yadda.
Further, when pretty much every team except Detroit has taken a turn in the competitive dunk tank this generation it stands to reason that every team except Detroit that wins a Cup will have made a top 5 pick (or two, or a dozen) within their competitive window. It's a statistical misnomer to claim there's a correlation because I'm pretty sure that almost every team in the NHL has made a top 5 pick since Detroit last had one (who still hasn't had one for 30 years), so anyone who wins a Cup will ring that bell.
The difference, obviously, is that some teams made a top 5 pick that worked, which is a wholly different thing. They also made trades that worked. And picks later in drafts that worked. And FA signings that worked. Also, they made all of those types of moves that didn't work.
So, that touches on the hockey side of whether a tank is sound strategy. The business case against it is so obvious it doesn't even require an explanation.