# Carroll agrees to long-term deal with Bobcats



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

http://www.charlotte.com/bobcats/story/184513.html



> *Carroll agrees to long-term deal with Bobcats*
> 
> *Sources: 6-year deal worth $27 million*
> 
> ...


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I'm sure Matt is pretty happy.I wasn't expecting it to cost nearly that much.Carroll really worked for it though.He's the sort of guy who might not have gotten a real oppurtunity.Heck in the last four season(only parts of the first two)Matt's only made 3.27 million so this is a big pay raise for him.I would have to guess that someone else made him a really nice offer.We're the only team that could have offered him six years so we must have had to in order to beat off someone else.
After we re-sign Gerald we probably won't have much left for a big name guy.This probably means that the FO thinks Darko would cost more than he's worth.We'll probably find marginal guys to back up the point and the interior.Maybe we'll try to give Jake another year.We really need to add some depth now.


----------



## nutmeged3 (Apr 11, 2005)

That's a lot longer then I expected but good for him. I can't see Carroll as someone that would stop trying now that he got paid so it should be fine it just seems like one of those contracts that you might end up regretting.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I think Carroll is like 26.It's really not so bad if you think about the fact that Adam Morrison is going to make 4.16 million next year...Wait...That didn't make me feel better.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Well if Crash doesn't return could you run Matt at the 2, and Richardson at 3?


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

How the hell do you get rid of Brevin Knight, but pay Matt Carroll that much?!
I mean, everyone needs shooters, yes..
But that contract's almost as good as Kapono's!
(and it can be agreed he's not as good as Kapono, right?)

Eitherway, a lot of money for a backup..
Unless Richardson starts at the 3.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Why do 7th and 8th men get signed to six year deals. Why can't guys get signed for 4 years? Must teams always give the maximum amount of years. Six years is a long friggin time.


----------



## dnbman (Jul 1, 2007)

You have to figure two things:

1. Other people were offering Matt the same money, possibly more. The six years was probably what made the deal happen. 

2. It's tough say that he's overpaid when Kapono and Walton both got 6 a year deal. If Matt were in Miami, I think he would have done at least as good as Kapono. 

Basically, I don't think it was a good deal, but it wasn't an especially bad one either. Matt means a lot to the team and helps us out a lot on the court. He may run with Richardson at times, but I don't think he's mean to be a replacement for Wallace if Wallace doesn't sign. 

Just consider this: there are TONS of guys in the league making 2-3 million that do FAR less than Matt.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

It's a long deal, but he was being saught after by quite a few teams. Atleast a 4.5M deal is pretty easy to trade.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Too many years for too much salary, but then again, my favorite team signed Brian ****ing Scalabrine for fifteen million dollars.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I like Carroll. However role players in the NBA for the most part stink after year three on these contracts. I would sign every bench player (non 6th-man or rookie) to a 3 year deal and say take it or leave it. 6 years is college plus grad school for a lot of people. It's just ugly.


----------



## The Jopker (Sep 14, 2005)

It's not too bad a move now but I bet that in four years it'll look horrible. If he was going to get as many years or more money someplace else we should have let him walk, especially if this hinders our chances at resigning Wallace.


----------



## dnbman (Jul 1, 2007)

Could be.

However, salaries and the cap slowly inflate. By the end of his contract, that money might actually be a bargain, particularly if he provides killer scoring off the bench.


----------



## nutmeged3 (Apr 11, 2005)

Even if it does inflate Carroll's skills are going to decline. It doesn't look bad right now but Carroll's playing style isn't going to keep him at a high level for very long. We needed to re-sign him but 6 years is just too long. I guess it's just a worry about it later type thing, atleast it wasn't as much as Kapono and Walton got


----------



## dnbman (Jul 1, 2007)

Yeah, but he should be at least a solid 3 point specialist for 4-5 years and we could trade his expiring contract on his last year.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

People were clamoring to see the Bobcats spend their money, well here you are...


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

True, but I think they were hoping for big FA signings like Vince Carter or next year's batch.

Not Matt F'ing Carroll..


Bickerstaff definitely had the right plan (moreso than MJ does, anyway!)


----------



## dnbman (Jul 1, 2007)

Trading for Richardson essentially was the big signing. With Wallace, Richardson, and Okafor on the books, we wouldn't have had any realistic chance at a superstar next year. We'd already have $41M tied up in Wallace, Richardson, Okafor, May, Morrison, Felton, and Dudley. Even if the rest of the roster averaged $1, we'd still be close to $50. That would get a solid player, but not an all-star type guy. 

It's not remotely a sexy signing, but it's not that bad.


----------



## nutmeged3 (Apr 11, 2005)

different_13 said:


> True, but I think they were hoping for big FA signings like Vince Carter or next year's batch.
> 
> Not Matt F'ing Carroll..


I don't think there was a Bobcat fan on this board that wanted to go anywhere near Vince Carter unless he was going to come at a discount and that wasn't happening. 4.5 million is a lot less then the 15+ million we would have given to him or another all-star. Carroll's a lot better then you'd think and he's more important to this team because of the way he plays and our lack of backcourt depth. I don't have a problem with the amount of money we gave him. After Kapono and Walton got 6 mil I think 4.5 is a bargain since they all do the same thing. The years is the only thing that bothers me. We got our 6 man for a couple years now and I think Carroll's going to be a lot better in that role


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

As best I can tell it was Nets fans who thought we should sign Carter to the sort of incredibly bloated contract he is getting from New Jersey.Essentially he and Richardson were the same player last year,only Richardson acted like he was allergic to the rim because he was injured.Carter could have attacked the rim any time he wanted to.As far as I am concerned we paid Carroll to shoot threes.Richardson needs to start acting like the player people seem to think he is rather than the player he was last year.If all he's going to do is shoot treys like he did last year this is going to be a catastrophe just like signing Carter would have been.


----------



## dnbman (Jul 1, 2007)

He doesn't just shoot threes, although he's pretty darn good at doing that. In the playoffs, he got over 7 boards a game, which is pretty huge for the SG spot. He seemed to start attacking the rim a lot more too. 

I think once he's healthy (which he seems to be now), it won't be a problem. He doesn't have a lot of the character issues that Carter has.


----------

