I like that idea in theory, and if we don't win the lottery our options will basically be limited to that anyway. I'm just not convinced it can work. Having to work hard in all avenues is a given for any team that wants to succeed, even for those with lottery picks. Teams like Edmonton can get elite players and still be bad because the org around them is a trash fire. Teams like Washington and Pittsburgh still had to build quality teams around their stars to win Cups.
I feel like this debate about tanking/lottery/whatever often gets derailed because people seem to characterize the other side's position as either 'If you get lottery picks everything will fall into place', which is obviously false when looking at Edmonton for example. Or, 'You don't need lottery picks if you build the rest of the team right', which to me seems premature and arbitrary since that scenario hasn't been accomplished yet in the salary cap era.
I just think it's a mix of both. Getting to the promised land means drafting well so that you have players that outplay their expectations, being smart with contracts and the cap, and frankly, having a lottery pick. What makes a lottery pick so important is what they are relative to their peers. The top 10 of any given year is the cream of the crop, the lottery picks tend to be on another tier entirely. It shouldn't be a surprise or controversial to say that these guys often go on to have the same kind of impact in the NHL. Not only the cream of the crop, but the cream of the cream of the crop. That's why, to me, you need one of these guys if you want to get through the entire league and win a Cup.