Parsons suitors could include T'wolves, Lakers, Bulls, Mavs, along with Rockets

I think the Parsons follow is a big deal.

 

Parsons v. Hayward (last year)

Points: 16.6 v. 16.2
Rebounds: 5.5 v. 4.3
Assists: 4.0 v. 5.2
FG%: 47.2 v. 41.0
3pt: 37 v. 30
FT%: 74.2 v. 81.6
Steals: 1.2 v. 1.4
PER: 15.9 v. 16.2
TS: 56.5 v. 52.0
WS: 7.6 v. 3.6

No way Hayward gets the max, or the GM that does should be banned from the NBA

 

How can the Rockets compete with Golden State as far as a trade for Love is concerned?

The reports dealing with GSW have talked about them trading both Klay Thompson AND David Lee AND picks.

How is Houston even close to that?

Parsons, Lin, and a pick that is most likely to be in the in the 16-20 range?

Why would Minnesota ever trade Kevin Love for Parsons, Lin, and a mid-to-late first round pick

 

/thread.

It makes no sense at all. "Okay, we lost Kevin Love, but now we can rebuild around the Rodney McCray of the 21st Century!!!!1!! Let's start a new ad campaign, now!"

 

1. The GSW are hesitant to include Klay Thompson, Parsons might not be considered much of a downgrade
2. The 2015 NOP 1st that the Rox have available is guaranteed NOT to be a late 1st round pick. So you are understating the value of the pick
3. The GSW have limited picks to trade and a limited to late 1st round picks
4. The Rockets probably have better trade throw ins than the Warriors such as rights to Capela and Llull and the NYK 2015 2nd round pick

 

But surely another team could offer more than David Lee and some late picks or Parsons, Lin and some picks?

And that Pelicans pick is most likely going to be around the 20th pick. The Pelicans are not going to be bad next year.

 

Also, 5. You are forgetting Terrence Jones who is a solid add for the TWolves (or any team)

 

Has to be a club Love would be willing to stick with. So options are limited.

Lee is a very mediocre player, and will be guaranteed 30 million over the next 2 seasons. Minnesota wants no part of that.

Despite the current Parsons hatefest around here, him and Thompson are on a similar level.

 

This probably isn't a huge factor but they did just draft Zach LaVine too and I'm assuming there gonna keep him and use him as a SG since they already have Rubio.

Yes Klay Thompson is an upgrade over LaVine but the kids got potential and you wanna play him and develop his game. So in that circumstance if they got Thompson they would likely use him as a SF/3. So this is where I would value Parsons more because he is a true SF/3...

this is just my 2 cents and opinion though, I'm probably completely wrong.

 

Plus Hayward is getting the most minutes of a bad team. Chandler is the 3rd option.

 

Bingo.

Parsons played for a top 5 team in the nba.

Hayward for a bottom 5 team in the nba.

Yet Parsons stats are still much better then Hayward's.

 

Well, Parsons get set up for a lot of his shots and never sees a double team. And the other team's best defender is on Harden.. not Parsons.

From what I understand, Hayward is relied on to create his own shot pretty often, and I'm sure he sees more double teams than Parsons and also is guarded by the other team's best defender.

So although their stats may be similar, their circumstances are very different. Parsons had a much easier time getting his points.

Utah was also the 5th slowest team in the league. Houston was the 5th fastest in pace. So Parson's stats are a little inflated compared to Haywards.

 

And also, Hayward's stats were much better in 2012-2013 than 2013-2014... which leads me to believe he was playing hurt this year.

 

Cleveland also in the mix, according to Feigen:

 

^ Exactly.

Hypothetically if you plugged Hayward into Parsons spot last year I think you would see Haywards stats a lot differently. Im sure his 3pt% would increase to an above average number as well as a few others, but probably not any significant jumps.

 

ur dumb

 

and to think Houston didn't want to give up parsons and some picks fo rondo reportedly

 

Parsons has clearly had a better NBA career than Gordon Hayward, and it really hasn't been close.

I keep waiting for all of the claims that Hayward is better to materialize, but it hasn't yet. After 4 years in the NBA Hayward is still not as good as Chandler Parsons who has only been in the NBA for 3 years.

 

Teams can't do that to Parsons contract.

 

Or... maybe he is just not as good as some think. There were no reports about Hayward being unhealthy during the season were there?

Chandler Parsons battled back problems all season but he still put up very good numbers.