Lindros was traded for based upon his prospect status -everyone in the league seemed to know he was on the block and Quebec simply took the best deal available.
See Lindros had an excellent junior career -however his playing style was not conducive to longevity in the NHL -actually what it was conducive to was for having a predilection for acquiring concussions.
In fact he was being called the Next One at the time and hyped to the moon (anyone with hockey cards from that era would know it ...) it is also what really turns me off from the marketing hype. . . (and while I won't at this point ever agree with your prediction that Crosby might end up being one of the top 15 players of all time -I wouldn't even agree that he would be one of the top 15 forwards of all time at this stage... too much history in the NHL -and that is really a hell of a career if it ever were to happen). . .
I will agree that he would be in the top 5 of all time hyped and marketed players. Daigle would be another one ... all three of those guys are up there in that regard -which all that really does is reflect on the league's marketing strategy of the Gary Bettman era. . . in other words, trying to be the NBA.
_______
However, how exactly does anyone break down a trade that was a salary dump and largely involving prospects in return? Forget it - not worth even responding to - just more bored guys' writings ( there is a distinction between the odd messageboard post and a blog, and a column in a paper that someone gets paid for - but I suppose in the end it is actually all about the same thing. ) . But you don't usually get what you pay for in a lot of cases.