Some quick notes to start:
1. I am using Conference finalists as a proxy for "contenders"- this isn't perfect but it eliminates a lot of messy defining that would probably lead to a similar list.
2. I amusing the last 5 years because I want to capture what the NBA looks like now. Perhaps the last 6-8 years would be better or perhaps the last 3 would be better, 5 is a somewhat random number but 4 would have cut off the best Parsons comp so I made sure to include it. On the other hand I don't have unlimited time to write fan posts that never get front paged (bitter much?).
Lets go into it.
Over the past 5 years the 20 starting SFs (please don't quibble over that definition either unless I made a glaring error) for Conference final teams were (counting this season)
Leonard, Durant- 3x
Prince, Deng, Marion, Artest, Barnes, Hill- 1x
Breaking them into "like" groupings I get
Lebron, Durant, PG, Pierce
Deng, Marion, Artest, Barnes, Leonard
Leftovers- Hill and Prince (to be discussed)
This makes a lot of sense- the first grouping holds top of the NBA players who were either in, or just out of their primes at the time. Those 4 guys account for 11 out of the 20 slots or 55%. There is certainly some credence to the argument that it is a SF driven league right now. So group 1 are guys that can get it done on offense and defense, group 2 is 5 guys best known for their defensive capabilities, with large variation in their offensive capabilities (you could arguably drop Barnes out of this group considering how strong the other 4 players were defensively). This also makes a lot of sense- if you are going to battle with and through top SFs you probably need someone that can be relied on to handle them to some degree.
We have 2 leftovers- first is Tayshaun Prince- by far the worst player on the list and on a team that arguably made the finals only because of Westbrook's knee injury.
Finally we have Grant Hill- not a perfect doppelganger for Parsons but one whose 14/6/3 (per 36) line for a high powered offensive machine is close to Parsons' production and they hold similar TS %s as well as the use of a jumper as their primary offensive weapon. One major difference between the two (given Parsons' expected contract) will be financially as Hill signed a bargain basement contract and made only $3 million that year whcih allowed the Suns to add him to the $42 million+ core of Nash, Amar'e and Richardson.
There probably are ways to generate contender level teams with players like Parsons making significant sums (example- if you had Tony Allen at SG providing the requisite wing defense) but these combinations are going to be like snowflakes- unique and fragile where each crystal is dependent on all the others (end analogy sequence now), but as long as the league is dominated by Lebron, Durant and (to a lesser extent George (and maybe Wiggins) then building a team around a defensive oriented SF is going to be a far superior route to clawing your way into contender status.