Nets Sign Jerry Stackhouse at Minimal Cost, but What's the Point?

Rob MahoneyNBA Lead WriterJuly 11, 2012

ATLANTA, GA - JANUARY 21:  Jerry Stackhouse #42 of the Atlanta Hawks against Tristan Thompson #13 of the Cleveland Cavaliers at Philips Arena on January 21, 2012 in Atlanta, Georgia.  NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement.  (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)
Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images

The Brooklyn Nets will never stop adding players, apparently. Per Chad Ford of ESPN.com, Brooklyn has, for reasons that escape most logical basketball frameworks, agreed to a one-year deal with Jerry Stackhouse—the very same Jerry Stackhouse who toiled away on the bench of the Atlanta Hawks last season after remaining parked on the bench of the Miami Heat the season prior and contributed little off the bench for the Milwaukee Bucks the season before that. The 37-year-old swingman keeps on making rosters, and the Nets are merely the latest to oblige him with a deal for the veteran minimum.

Just going up on ESPN: Sources: The Nets reached a verbal commitment with Jerry Stackhouse on a 1-year deal worth$1.3M

— Chad Ford (@chadfordinsider) July 11, 2012

Considering the cost and the fact that Stackhouse isn't likely to see any kind of regular floor time, there's not much of an impact here, and thus not all that much worth complaining about; questionable moves happen in the NBA all the time, but the ones that deserve focus are those that cobble together ill-fitting cores, lock up team finances for the foreseeable future or sacrifice assets for no reason whatsoever. This is just the addition of a bench-warmer to a roster that's growing by the minute, and by season's end, it's highly unlikely that we'll have thought of and seen very little of Jerry Stackhouse.

Yet every roster spot and dollar spent should have a purpose, and I'm just not seeing either in regard to the Stackhouse addition. Was the D-League out of viable prospects? Were all of the other veteran minimum-worthy free agents away from their pagers? Was there really nothing to do but sign a once-terrific scorer who can't really score much these days, and can't really score efficiently at all?

There are other potential reasons that might explain how Stackhouse came to be a Brooklyn Net, but with this roster so deeply committed in salary to its current players, I'll raise an eyebrow at the fact that they willingly passed up an opportunity to try out a player with a chance at contributing on a minimum contract. There's no big splash necessary, as this is no monumental error. But these little things do matter, even if Stackhouse's presence in Brooklyn doesn't.