I think it depends on whether the Nets are at all willing to take on another long-term contract -- today -- if the right deal presented itself or whether they are TRULY going all out for LBJ and are determined not to add any salary beyond 2010. For example, suppose the Wizards approached with a sign and trade offer of Jameson or that Brand opts out and will consider NJ in a S &T. Would the Nets be willing to move some of these young players and take back established vets with contracts that will prevent NJ from making an outright offer to James in 2010? If not, then the only purpose in keeping Carter around is to tutor younger players and give the Nets a name and a face to keep some semblance of continuity and public interest over the next two years. They will make him an itinerant farmer, the guy who does all the tilling, fertilizing, watering, and nurturing but in the end knows the crops will be harvested by someone else.
I don't think Carter would deliberately shirk the responsibility of doing this, given the hyper scrutiny he will surely come under and his presumed desire to rescue his (mostly unjust) reputation as a "quitter". But it's only human nature that, at 31, he would find the task of carrying a team full of infants overwhelming. Right now, Harris is the only guy with both the skill and experience/poise to share that load, and one is not enough. He and Carter have to feel like they have enough veteran help to stay competitive in games or their own morale will tumble very low.
The Nets may not care so much if Carter goes through that, but they have to care if Harris does since he's the PG of the future as well as of the present and someone whose own continued growth they must ensure. So even if they don't bring in long term contracts, they need to trade some youth/picks for at least ONE quality vet now.
