Carlson and Shattenkirk which one do i sign to 3 and 2 year contracts? - REP

[bluck]

Which one takes the 3 year and which one takes the 2?

See sig for cats

Option 1
Carlson x 3
Shattenkirk x 2

vs

Option 2
Shattenkirk x 3
Carlson x 2

[MXHockey]

It depends on your 2-3 year plan.

If you're looking to win 2-3 years from now, it looks like Shattenkirk is ahead of Carlson right now on the development curve, and I would probably secure Shatty for 3 years and sign Carlson for 2 years.

If you're looking at this from an asset management point of view, it may take Carlson another 3 years to develop into a trade-able asset that could net solid return. Shattenkirk is more proven, at this point and you could likely get something for him now or in the next year or two if you needed to. If you're not going to win, hold onto Carlson, and trade Shatty when you can yield the best return.


As of today, I like Shattenkirk better this year, but that could change by December if Carlson has a hot start.


Good luck with your decision.


Cheers.

[bondon]

Hah, I remember your last thread. I guess with Vokoun signing you're bailing on Neuvirth eh?
Anyways as far as your question goes I think Molson worded it perfectly. I believe I voted for Shattenkirk for 3 last time but Molson brings up the great point of asset management. I think next year is Green's last year of his contract so if he gets moved then you could see Carlson's value skyrocket.

[ovi42]

Personally I'd go Shatty with a 3 year contract and Carlson with a 2 year contract.

For fantasy purposes I think Shatty is going to be the better option to own both short and long term; I have zero doubts he'll man the top PP in St Louis for year to come with Pietrangelo and St Louis should have a pretty deadly PP which should translate to some pretty good points for him.

I don't believe Mike Green gets traded or goes anywhere, anytime soon.
In my eyes Carlson and Alzner will become a serious shut down duo for Washington, with more upside than most shut down d, but in a shut down role nontheless. I don't think Carlson gets the offensive minutes to compete with Shatty, it's as simple as that for this guy.

Shatty x3
Carlsonx2.

[playmaker26]

If signing Carlson to a 3 year deal will increase his trade value over him signed to a 2 year deal, I'd sign him. And then try to move him. Carlson is valued more than Shattenkirk to some people.

I like Shattenkirk more in terms of points and for the future but Carlson has a better reputation.

[tgraveline]

As much as I am a fan of Carlson, I think I have to go with option 2. Shattenkirk has the better placement and opportunity to score more and since your league is just about points only type this makes him more valuable long-term. Carlson will have a better +/-, but with the new defense that has been brought in Washington, I just don't know what unit he's on anymore or if he's even on a PP unit. If he is its still the second one unless they move Green, which I don't think is going to happen.

[andrewklassen]

I agree the smart money is on Shattenkirk producing NOW and continuing that trend so signing him to the 3 years deal is probably wisest. Are you guaranteed to lose them after that?

What I keep coming back to is this regarding Carlson...he posted 37 points in his first full season in the NHL while, a) seeing limited PP time, b) shutting down opposing team's best offensive units [and posting over +20], c) on a WAS team where everyone had a 'down' year offensively. He could be a 40-45 point D even in a two-way or shut down role. What could he blossom into if he gains some offensive minutes?

Shattenkirk has the offensive opportunity so smart money is on him for the longer deal. I just keep thinking Carlson is going to find a way to blossom regardless of opportunity.

[bluck]

Thanks for all the responses and rep given!

I think the majority believe option 2 is the best way to go so I think thats the way Ill go at this point!

The Vokoun signing really screwed me, I need to draft a goalie now since I have a feeling Varlamov will fail pretty fast.

[Thieving Giraffe]

I think the majority believe option 2 is the best way to go so I think thats the way Ill go at this point!

I think that's a good move. Similar line of thought to Molson's "asset management" reasoning, you may also find that (if the end of contracts means that you have to compete with / bid against other managers) Shattenkirk will be more difficult to re-sign/acquire after two years than Carlson would be... making it wise to hold onto him (KS) for three from a cap/bid management point of view.