This tradwe would do nothing for the Nets. I'm all for trading Sean, but this would be akin to giving him away. The Nets need a PG, pure and simple.
You can never have enough shooters and Carroll is better at that than either of the two guys we signed. If you put him in for the same minutes Trenton is getting then I see it as an upgrade. For the record, i'm not saying i'm all that excited for this deal but I get why this idea is being floated about. It's another quality person addition who could help us offensively at an area of inconsistency for us for two guys we would like to get rid of. A number of teams are looking for a 3rd string pg making trading for one pretty tricky as teams like Memphis are holding out for the best possible deals. This could be a reasonable if-all-else-fails type of move, one that could also free up a spot and allow us to sign Hodge/Gill or another FA 3rd string PG if we still wanted to go that route as well.
It would do two other things IF the Nets feel comfortable taking on that much salary in 2010 (which I strongly doubt) and believe Sean Williams is a lost cause, at least here (which I don't doubt): it saves them money this year--about a half million, and frees up a roster spot that can be used for a third string point guard. It might not sit well with a couple of players signed over the summer players who were forced to either accept a buyout provision or a team option in 2010. That would include Dooling, Najera and CDR.
Those 3 guys are pros. Of the three, Dooling is the most likely candidate to get flustered but Carroll won't have much effect on his role with the team. By 2010 Najera will in all likeliness be gone and if all goes to plan CDR should be firmly planted in our rotation and on his way to a nice extension. I know we're looking to have a bare payroll by then but it's not like Carroll's contract will be the toughest sell Thorn has ever had to make.
Any player would be an upgrade of Trent Hassell. I don't see why he's getting PT. Hayes and Simmons may be inconsistent and I know you can never have enough shooters but why bring in another guy who'll just take minutes from CDR? Also, we signed those guys for one reason: because they can shoot the ball, as streaky as they may be. Bringing in another shooter who plays their exact same position and has their exact same faults (bad defense) won't do much to improve the team and willl only add another long term contract which we don't need.
maybe i'm missing something here but has cdr ( who may turn out to be a good player) done anything since the regular season started? He's not a factor yet, and may not be until a month or two down the road, if at all. Carroll is a real solution on many counts. One helps break up the logjam at pf, gets rid of 2players for one back that we can use. Helps the current bigs now get more playing time thus continuing their development. And gives the nets a real nice shooter who won't hurt the team. He is a better shooter than boki, a current ryan anderson, and Yi right now. They may be better down the road but right now are streak shooters at best. Carroll is a shooter who is consistant now. Plus Carrolls contract will be an asset the nets can deal away down the road, he will still have value and maybe in two years his contract will be considered a bargin to other teams.
Again, I completely understand that perspective and that's why i'm not exactly thrilled with the idea. But we are also trying to stockpile talent as well. In my opinion, our team is success lies in the fact that we are 10 deep and versatile to matchup with whatever the opposing team throws at us. CDR will play because he can guard players Carroll cannot and there will be instances where Carroll is what we need over CDR. Turning two guys who are non factors into one who could be on the floor during a final possession while addressing our 3rd string pg need through free agency is a considerable thing to think about.
True, but would you really rather have Gill handling the ball against true NBA defenders than Vince Carter? I think VC as the 3rd PG is good enough for the handful of games Harris will miss this year.
I'm not a big Gill fan and i've always said VC's the closest thing we have to a point guard we have on our roster so if I had to choose of course i'd rather it be in Carter's hands. It is also a long season and we need a serviceable guy to come in and spot some minutes if anything were to happen to Vince, Devin or Keyon. I'm talking a guy who can buy some bench time in the 2nd and 3rd quarters and I have a hard time believing we'll find a 3rd string PG who'll be anything more than that. Gill belongs in the D-League but he does have experience, knows our team, and can help our kids on the sidelines while always being ready when his number is called. Eddie would only be signed as insurance and play sparingly against 2nd string competition at best. If for any reason Gill is out there against starting caliber PG's that's Franks fault. If something better comes along, he's pretty easy to get rid of as well.
This is a misdirection. Take a step back and think for a minute. What are the Nets' assets, today? What are their strengths and weaknesses? How should they turn their assets into a better collection of stuff to minimize their weaknesses? How does acquiring Carroll advance their long-term goals? Does it fill their most basic needs, or would be be duplicative of their other assets, and be a luxury?
We have shooters upfront in Lopez, Yi and Anderson. At the wings and PG spot we have Carter and Hayes. CDR is more of a slasher. Simmons is streaky. Harris and Dooling are slashers. Positives: We could use another shooter at the wing and a 3rd pg. This two for one deal gives the Nets another shooter and the roster spot to pick up a 3rd pg. Negatives: Could impact CDR's minutes and his long term salary impacts 2010 flexibility. Tough call. There are reasons both ways. Thought this was an interesting article on Carroll.
