Everyone keeps saying the bolded and I see the opposite tbh
Rutger has wider range of outcomes to me.
Yager better floor, lower ceiling.
Just my opinion but I thought similar about the Drysdale/Sanderson debate. Everyone kept calling Drysdsle the high upside lower floor of the two and it seemed opposite. This is a little different since McGroarty isnt a great athlete (like Sanderson) but to me if he hits big he could produce way more points than Yager’s ceiling IMO and be a unique threat in doing it, like how Tkachuk and Benn are/were. Very hard to see Yager ever being like a big time point producer.
Floor wise: Yager better chance to carve out a role with his skating, 2way game and positional versatility as a RH shot and center capable. If McG too slow, he could be like a 100-200 game guy then done.
I think feel like the confusion is that many posters are missing a dimension in their evaluation. It's not just floor and ceiling, but team's positional needs, team's timing requirements and risk as well.
Some posters said Yager has more flexibility and options in slotting in the line up. I think that increases his floor but also increases the risk. Rutger is much more specific as a winger. I think that means his floor is lower, but also decreases the risk.
I think Yager is a bottom 9 or bust player. RM seems like he could be a winger on any line or bust type player.
I also think both teams got the type of player they needed. Winnipeg gets a prospect who can add to their centre group in contributing via committee as needed. Pens get a pure winger who can contribute nearly immediately and the centre skillset is unnecessary because they have Crosby/Malkin at C and decent options for bottom 6C. Both players also IMO are in a situation where their path to the NHL has gotten easier.