OK, the Flyers have the 7th worst points percentage in the NHL.
6th to 9th from the bottom is probably a good estimate of where the Flyers will finish in the standings.
Chicago, Anaheim, Columbus, and San Jose are much worse. Arizona and Montreal are slightly worse than the Flyers record-wise. I kind of doubt both will rise above the Flyers by season's end, but one of them could.
Of the the teams just ahead of the Flyers: Florida is unlikely to drop below the Flyers, and Vancouver and St. Louis probably will stay above the Flyers, though I guess it's possible both could fall with injuries.
Odds of the #1 or #2 pick:
6th worst: 7.5%, 7.9%
7th worst: 6.5%, 6.9%
8th worst: 6.0%, 6.4%
9th worst: 5.0%, 5.4%
Compare that to the teams that finish 2nd and 3rd worst:
2nd worst: 13.5%, 14.4%
3rd worst: 11.5%, 11.5%
4th worst: 9.5%, 9.8%
5th worst: 8.5%, 8.8%
Even the dead last team only has a 25% chance at Bedard, 75% chance of not picking first.
So is it really the right strategy to intentionally make the team as bad as possible?
To trade away their best players in TK, Sanheim, Provorov, etc. (who are still pretty young) in order to better "compete" with .300 points % teams like Chicago, Anaheim, Columbus, and San Jose to be worst of the lot?
For an at best 25% chance to take Bedard, and more likely a 13.5% to 8.5% chance to take Bedard?
All while you can keep your best young players, start building improvement *this season* rather than actively and intentionally making things even worse, and still have a 7.5% to 5% chance at winning Bedard?
Worst case scenario an improving team headed in the right direction toward next season ends up with the 6th to 10th overall draft choice in a very deep draft where they will still get an unusually excellent prospect in that range.