The usual argument. Who is the better prospect:
1 - most NHL ready?
2 - highest potential?
3 - most valuable in his role?
4 - most likely to make the NHL at the earliest age?
Schroeder gets the vote under scenario 1.
Lack probably in 2.
Argument for Gaunce in both 3 & 4.
By 4 i was meaning who would meet the "no longer a prospect" by the definition posted above. And by 3 I was intending that Gaunce, as a 3rd line center getting 45 pts and being able to punish people physically would probably considered more valuable than Schroeder as a 2nd line center getting 60 pts.
They are all legitimate ways to look at a prospect as "valuable".