Another idea might be to separate the idea of draft position (an annual 'reward' to help bad teams get better), and quality of product (how is the team doing longer term?). If a team has one bad season, it makes sense for them to be at the top of the lottery, score a good player, and get better. Could that system be tweaked? Sure, and a lot of the proposed ideas make some sense.
However, a bigger issue is having teams in the league like Sacramento or Philly that have been bad for years. It's one thing to have a bad roster, a bad coach, or bad luck through injuries for a season. It's another thing to have ownership that isn't investing in its team, making consistently poor decisions, and not putting a team on the floor that fans want to see. That costs the league money. . I'd love to see sports leagues force structural changes to teams that consistently underperform. For example, if your team finishes in last place or with a bottom 5 record for X years in a row, doesn't make the playoffs at least once in X years, etc. the owner is forced to give up their majority stake in the team by the league, or is otherwise sanctioned in a way that would intent them to invest in better players and better front office staff. Not sure if owners would vote that in, but they might, as it would benefit most of them to have a better overall product across the league.