RealGM

You are an expansion team and you can pick one of these guys-as a rookie, to start the franchise next season. You get them, relatively injury free, for 12 years (4 year rookie deal, 5 year supermax, 3 year extension-max again). Which one do you pick for those 12 70+ games/year for your team to build around?

Does relatively injury free mean no season ending injuries?

I'd be tempted to pick Rose in the pace and space era. That Bulls team had awful spacing, no 2nd lead guard to ease pressure off Rose and Rose was still a bit raw. I think he would have progressed well without injuries and continued improving. But that's all hypothetical.

If there's still a risk of Rose getting season ending injuries, I'd go Westbrook then.

I like Penny for his combo of size/athleticism and bb iq. I don't like the shoot first gunners compared to him. I'd go so far as to say he's a tier above most of them if healthy.

Penny for me. If I got the second pick, I wouldn't mind taking dark horse B. Diddy and seeing how good he would be if injury-free.

If healthy I take Penny, and Westbrook if in normal circumstances. Both extremely clear picks for me. Shout out to healthy Baron Davis.

Healthy Penny is at least 2 tiers higher than anyone else here and had wing size at 6'6 215lbs so wouldnt have to worry about the height and size limitations of a smaller Pg in playoffs. easy choice

A healthy Penny is in the top 15 all time argument. He is no doubt my first choice.

asindc wrote:A healthy Penny is in the top 15 all time argument. He is no doubt my first choice.

That seems aggressive. He was certainly an aesthetically appealing guy. Dynamic transition player. Big ball handler, great vision. Good wing passing. I don't think we saw enough of him to really make a compelling case that he was dead-set a top 15 type player, though. Electric player, tons of fun to watch, but yeah, that seems excessive.

Gary Payton

tsherkin wrote:

asindc wrote:A healthy Penny is in the top 15 all time argument. He is no doubt my first choice.

That seems aggressive. He was certainly an aesthetically appealing guy. Dynamic transition player. Big ball handler, great vision. Good wing passing. I don't think we saw enough of him to really make a compelling case that he was dead-set a top 15 type player, though. Electric player, tons of fun to watch, but yeah, that seems excessive.

Dead set, I don’t know. Worthy of argument, sure. Not about aesthetics for me, but having a healthy elite wing with elite PG skills would place him in the argument IMO.

asindc wrote:Dead set, I don’t know. Worthy of argument, sure. Not about aesthetics for me, but having a healthy elite wing with elite PG skills would place him in the argument IMO.

Right, but again, Top 15. That's a ballsy spot to put a guy who never did anything without Shaq and didn't have a world-beating jumper. I understand injury cut him down really fast, so we never got to see, but he was 25 by the time he played his first season without Shaq, and even then he didn't really show more than, say, Joe Johnson, aesthetics aside. Obviously, again, a big ball handler with good vision and exciting to watch and all that. And he put on a pretty show in the loss to the Heat that year. But top 15 is a lot to put on that sort of player. He had quicks and he had bounce, he had vision and all that, but there are tons and tons of guys who have had long careers where they did very, very well. There's nothing but supposition with Penny, leastwise for something so specific as to be one of the 15 best players in NBA history. His physical tools coupled to his skillset are not such a remarkable package that he stands out that much, you know what I mean?