You're comparing Trouba to Pietrangelo as a way to illustrate the he isn't overrated/overvalued?
Seems like your argument has spun out at that point.
Pietrangelo signed his deal at the age of 24. His stat line was: 224 games, 29 goals, 121 points (0.54 ppg) while averaging around 23 minutes a night. With a high water mark of 51 points in 81.
Trouba signed his deal at the age of 25. His stat line was: 408 games, 42 goals, 179 points (0.44 ppg) while averaging around 23 minutes a night. With a high water mark of 50 points in 82.
Pietrangelo signed for 10.11% compared to Trouba's 9.82%. If Pietrangelo had the same salary cap to work with when his deal was signed, he would have signed for $8.24 million. Pietrangelo also slid his first two years, had a smaller resume built, and had only accrued 3 seasons. Meaning he had 4 years of RFA status and 3 years of UFA status consumed on his current deal. Compared to Trouba's deal that was signed with close two twice the track record in length and 6 accrued seasons; his deal consumed only 1 year of RFA status and 6 years of UFA status.
In some capacity we are comparing apples to oranges because Pietrangelo was signing a long-term RFA extension whereas Trouba was essentially negotiating a UFA contract. But my point remains the same, Trouba still signed for lesser percentage of the cap than Pietrangelo did at a similar age, with a longer track record, with more UFA years being purchased. That makes a contract comparison reasonable, and the comparison that is made is one that actually supports the contract that he signed.
All the bitching about Trouba, but I bet most of the people complaining would have loved to sign Thomas Chabot to the exact same cap hit and one extra year of term...