quote:
Trading chip for ANYTHING.
Ah, well that's a totally different and irrelevant discussion then. The rockets were never going to trade parsons for anything, they were only going to trade him as apart of a package that returned an all-star caliber/ franchise-changing player. That's a unique set of circumstances. As I've demonstrated repeatedly, historically teams do not give guys up like that willingly for expiring contracts and draft picks. An article that explains this very well is
hereAn excerpt that back up what I'm saying:
quote:
There’s a theory in some Rockets’ fan circles — one that I don’t agree with — that Parsons will ultimately be traded once he becomes too expensive. The logic is to either save Les Alexander a steep luxury tax bill or to eventually package Parsons in a deal for a third All-Star piece.
Even under that hypothetical, my guess is that Parsons is more desirable on a fair long-term contract than a short-term deal at $1 million. Teams won’t trade significant value for a young, Fegan-controlled player entering unrestricted free agency. The risk is too high. But if Parsons signs a reasonable deal (4 years, $30 million?), his market value could be comparable to Lowry’s or even better.
The bottom line is that with two All-Star talents in the fold, the price of retaining cap flexibility is likely too high. The Rockets are in contending mode and will do everything they can to immediately build a championship supporting cast around Harden and Howard. In the case of Parsons, that means finding the most team-friendly contract possible, which probably comes via restricted free agency.
Oh, and I've already spent way too much time in here discussing this topic and I'm sure everyone else on this thread is getting annoyed, so I apologize for that everyone, this is my last post regarding the decision and logic behind making parsons a RFA, promise.
[This message has been edited by cdhaggie07 (edited 7/15/2014 1:50p).]
