I don't get how posters don't think Morris deserves to play ahead of Budinger &Parsons but believe he's going to net you Danny Granger or Eric Gordon in a trade.
Then who are you talking to when you're saying it's stupid to give him away? I don't think anyone here believes we could trade him straight-up for Granger or Gordon.
what about Marcus Morris and Budinger and dragic (use thabeet to make numbers work) doubt the do that tho...this is their first year to actually look like contenders...doubt they trade anyone and mess up the chemistry...specially their best player.
Maybe I'm Optimistic I think we're playing Parsons for two reasons, to increase his trade value for those partners asking for C-Bud in any package and to give him experience that he needs to get better and become more attractive. As for not playing Morris it's the opposite I think they're trying to hide his potential to keep other teams from wanting him. Same with my thoughts on why they didn't bring Donatas over which I'm sre they ould have if they wanted to.
On the other hand, if you give him serious floor time and turns out to be a major flop, you can't get anything for him.
I value the person who can make a smart and interesting point without having 50,000 posts... quality lol and this is an interesting point. We know GMs like to showcase available talent so why haven't more people made this point about hiding what we consider unavailable talent? If Morris is unavailable then it makes sense.... Personally, I think Parsons cracked the rotation because he makes up for a lot of mistakes in our team defense and had 3-4 games of great offense/aggressiveness to justify his occasional timidness. Parsons/Bud are valuable because of those contracts and if you'd want to bring in an established league star then you're starting with $16mil/year and up so you can't undervalue those <$1mil contributors.
To add to it, it just smells like something Morey would do, they knew Parsons was going to be a good (asset) player at the draft position. Maybe he's just playin better than anticipated a la Tebow like. And yes there could be the simple answer that he was simply outperforming Bud in practice for the less optimistic folks out there.
Marcus measured in at the combine exactly 0.50 inches shorter than his brother. I watched them both at KU regularly. While Markieff clearly projected as an 4, Marcus was a slightly more dynamic faceup 4 who could take opposing bigs off the dribble. Marcus lacks the dynamic ability to create scoring opportunities for himself from the perimeter, as well as guard NBA SFs. He's a quality shooter, but much better off the catch. His handle is limited to 2-3 dribbles out of the triple threat, and not much more. One thing we could do is play him with Parsons, to allow him to guard the weaker offensive forward. That way he could use his power to take 3s to the block, or his quickness to expose bigger 4s in mid-post faceup situations.
That's the thing. The Rockets want Marcus to add more dimensions to his game than what he showed at Kansas. And that takes time regardless of whether the experiement succeeds or fails. Markieff OTOH did exactly the same thing at Kansas as he's expected to do today. That's why one is playing in the NBA and the other is still being coached at the D-League level.
Dang that's what I get for trusting ESPN's listed 6'10 measurement for Markieff Hmm, from interviews it sounded like he had a lot of confidence in his ball handling. He played point guard in high school so I don't know that he's limited to only a few dribbles out of triple threat. Then again, 2-3 dribbles is usually all you need to make your move anyway. Also, I still want to see him try to guard NBA SFs. Maybe he'll overcome our doubts and be able to do it.
