I get the concerns about Trouba. I am far from convinced that its fair to say that Trouba is a No 1 D. But the usual context arguments can also be made in favor of him.
1. I will get back to his age later, so let’s establish how old he is. He is born in 94’ and is 25 y/o. That makes him just a year older than TDA and Pionk.
NHL Ds peak age is two years longer than for forward, so getting Trouba at 25 is compareable to getting a forward at 23. 7 years from now puts him at 32 y/o, that is 2 years within the 90% of peak average for Ds (
https://www.cbc.ca/news/when-nhl-players-peak-hockey-metrics-1.2646054).
You can of course argue that he has more miles on him than the most Ds, given that he got into the league. That is of course also relevant.
Further, at 25 y/o he is now the age when most D's peak
starts (op. cit.).
2. Lets say that the reported numbers are true, that he will get 7 years at 7 million (albeit I would guess at him getting a little more, but the difference should be coffee money). What if he isn't really a good No 1 D?T
First of all, from 25 y/o to 32 y/o you cover the 'best' 7 of his 9 peak years. Statistically, you cannot get a D at a better age.
Second of all, 7m per is not No 1 D money. Drew Doughty established the bench-mark for top No 1 D money when signing for 11m per. OEL signed for a bit cheaper, 8.250m per, but I think he took a discount in relation to what he would get on July 1.
HRR is growing 6,7% on average since the cap was put in force. Even if we count on less natural growth than that, say 4% which is a lot lower in this perspective, Trouba's contract
does get cheaper. 7 years ago it was like if he made 5m, and in 7 years guys getting paid the same amount will make 9m. At least.
3. So in the end, you are getting a D that
should be in his prime for the entire duration, and you are not quite paying him No 1 D money today and certainly not down the road.