I get what you're saying, but at this point in the game Naslund had basically shown nothing but progress. If anything, the comparison is an even more cautionary one where even a massive talent like Naslund, who was able to absolutely stand out in his D+1, still ran into trouble when he hit the NHL (albeit a very, very different NHL of the era).
I understand the desire to make these connections, but I think there's often a serious underestimating of how much of a filter every year of hockey can be. For every player that struggles and then finally puts it together to great success in their mid-20s, there are literally thousands for whom those struggles are just evidence of them not making the next step, often for reasons outside their control. This becomes especially more so today with the league being so much younger and UFA coming up so much earlier than when Naslund was breaking in and teams retained control over a player until they were in their 30s.
This is by no means a judgment on Lekkerimaki as a prospect - it's obviously still early days, but just a comment that the urge to find those examples to say "look he figured it out" is often probably more an emotional response than anything.