Yeah, in the NFL it's an artifact of the 16-game season and very strong top-of-draft relative to the rest.
In the NBA, it's an artifact of there usually being, at most, 2-3 players available in the draft who can reverse the fortunes of the franchise (and some years, that number is 0).
In the NHL... wait, why is tanking a problem in the NHL? Is it, even? They have a lengthy and complex minors system that ought to blunt the impact of the draft. Is there some revenue-sharing stuff tied to finishing position? Careers for top players in the NHL can be very long, too. Theirs is the league most like baseball in this regard.
In baseball, maybe one year in five is there an obvious, consensus, franchise-altering #1-overall pick available. Ken Griffey Jr (1987), Chipper Jones (1990), A-Rod (1993), Adrian Gonzalez (2000), Joe Mauer (2001), David Price (2007), Bryce Harper (2010). The #2 overall pick would net you JD Drew (1997), Josh Beckett (1999), Justin Verlander (2004), Alex Gordon (2005), and a lot of variance beyond that. The #3 pick became Matt Williams (1986), Troy Glaus (1997) and Evan Longoria (2006), but also a lot of never-weres.
Meanwhile:
- Trout was drafted #25 overall
- Kershaw was #7
- Greinke was #6, and rather famously had a tough first few years in the majors
- CC Sabathia was #20
- Pujols went in the 13th round
- Maddux went in the 2nd round as did Tom Glavine; Randy Johnson went in the 4th round, and was 30 before he put it together; Biggio was #22 overall; Smoltz was in the 22nd round (!). Etc etc.
...and that leaves out all the amateur FAs including Miguel Cabrera, Felix Hernandez, Adrian Beltre, Pedro f'ing Martinez, and we might as well include Piazza
My point is, any team obviously or semi-obviously tanking in the last few months is not gaining much if any expected draft value, at the expense of their dignity and some very-real short-term ticket sales and TV coverage. You would expect that, all else equal, if one team is tanking and costing themselves money for little long-term gain, their competitors would love that display of irrationality.
Where MLB teams might have a valid complaint, however, is that when some team does something dumb like that (via fielding B-team lineups, keeping stars out on extended rehab stints, and of course trading MLB assets for Minors lottery tickets), the beneficiaries are scattered. The opponents scheduled in the second half of the season may not be evenly distributed among other teams competing for playoff spots and short-term success. Or those teams (who, say, get a minors callup facing them as a starter, instead of a being-held-out all-star SP) may have their benefits vary day-to-day, series-to-series. So if TB is tanking and the MFY get 12 late-season games against them and BOS only gets 7, we'd be miffed by that. I can see that creating a common cause by owners, to try and enforce some good sense.