clem wrote:If we use HF's definition of a prospect (less than 65 NHL games & under 24yrs) & their player success probability,
the Canucks with roughly equal probability of success (as Erixon) are: Lack, Kassian, Duco, & Tanev.
I think you're misinterpreting HF's system of ranking players (which is hard to blame you for since they've changed the labels without actually changing the way they rate players - hardly speaks to their credibility as a source but that's another matter), or you are just comparing prospect quality entirely in terms of how likely they are to reach their various ceilings..
Erixon, Lack, Kassian, Tanev and Duco may all be B prospects but they are 7.5B, 7B, 7B, 6.5B and 6.0B respectively.
While Erixon (according to HF) is a 90% probability to turn out somewhere between a 7 (Kuba, Ehrhoff, Tallinder) and an 8 (Keith, Boyle, Timonen) Mike Duco has the same chance to turn out to be a player of the calibre of Matt Cooke, Manny Malhotra or Trent Hunter.
They may all have the same rating when it comes to the likelihood of meeting their potential (as defined by Hockeys Future) but HF explicitly states Erixon has the greatest potential of any of them.
(Personally I'd take Kassian over Erixon but he is in my opinion a better prospect than any of the rest.)
Anyway it's moot as there is absolutely no way Luongo returns a package like what Nash got. Two top nine forwards (both of whom can play center), a blue chip defense prospect and a first round pick would be an astonishing return.
Even if we got a "salary dump" of Dubinsky's calibre and a prospect of Erixon's calibre I'd be completely happy with the trade.