Branstrom was one of the leagues top prospects, so I don't think Stone and Muzzin's returns were similar at all.
Tatar is a worse player, but he still got a first, second and third the year prior to the Pacioretty trade, which is what I'm referring to, but his inclusion was that of a cap balance, similar to what I'd value Kerfoot (as an example) of being. A piece made redundant by the trade and too expensive to keep in a lesser role, given his performance on the Knights. The return was essentially Suzuki and a second,
with Tatar not holding the value of what he became later, or previously.
Hall to Arizona (two conditional 1sts, Schnarr, Bahl and Merkley) and Duchene to Ottawa (Hammond, Bowers, Kamanev, Girard, a first, second and third), both of whom were only younger by a year I think. Bahl and Merkley or Kamenev and Bowers are no Robertson and Niemla, but the picks involved were definitely expected to be higher than Toronto's. Engvall and Voit are fillers here too.
One thehockeywriters' Leafs guy article, opinion piece really, doesn't make a prospect that valuable to other teams either. I'm not accusing the author of trying to get more clicks by using the Leafs fan base love of their prospects (although, that is sports journalism of late) but of course he will puff up prospects he's more familiar with. Roberston's value is hyperinflated due to his brothers season, despite his small size and already extensive injury history. I also fail to see how Niemla got into the top 30 on that article, while guys like Schneider, Lundkvist and Faber didn't. For arguments sake though, how about we call them the Leafs top two prospects.
Not that I advocate this trade, I want substance and need far more then just adding pieces onto a deal, and Toronto's three top pieces are attractive, I agree this is not the deal they should make. But most of the counter offers here the Canucks shouldn't make either.