Are you really trying to argue that trying to be good and failing horribly is more deserving than being bad on purpose? Can't tell if serous...
The league has for several decades run a draft which intentionally rewards the worst teams. Deserving? I guess you can have philosophical messageboard arguments about that, but it's clear that the league powers-that-be (in all the major North American professional sports leagues) think it's a good idea to give the worst teams a chance to acquire the best new talent. So, we can say with certainty that the league thinks it's a good idea to reward teams that fail horribly. We can also observe the the league only instituted lotteries once it became clear that some teams would try to "game" the system, so the league has also decided that it's not a good idea to reward teams for being bad on purpose. So again, one can argue about "deserving", but it's patently clear that the league
intends to reward teams that are legitimately bad and prefers not to reward teams that are bad on purpose.
As for why the league has arranged things this way, and continues to arrange things this way after several decades, IMO that's also pretty obvious, it's because the NHL (and all the other NA pro leagues) think it's generally a good idea to promote at least a certain level of parity within the league. Messageboard posters can choose to disagree with their philosophy (although it will be somewhat pointless), but it's pretty obvious that the league does in fact want to reward teams that are legitimately bad teams.