All-time players legacies you believe would have been viewed completely differently if drafted by a different team

[Owly]

Had Rick Barry been selected #1 in the 1965 draft he ends up having a more storied career than Larry Bird and is the greatest SF ever until LBJ comes along.

Barry was the second non-territorial pick and what I would tend to call the second pick, though one may see 4th (where the pick ranks if other teams hadn't utilized their territorial rights) and one could argue 5th (given the three territorial picks and 1 conventional one made before his selection).

Regardless the first pick belonged to the Warriors (in practice among conventional picks, and in theory among all picks) so being selected 1 would make no difference to him whatsoever (unless GSW had used their pick territorially and someone else got the first conventional pick). So this merely means swapping the order he and Fred Wetzel were picked in.

If I were to guess, I'd imagine you're thinking of the Knicks, who had the rights to pick 2nd but instead used a territorial selection on Bill Bradley. It seems quite plausible the Knicks could have landed Barry (taking their conventional pick), but not by picking first. If envisioning Barry on the great Knicks teams too that requires (a) him not junking up future draft positions, (b) him not wanting to join the ABA often credited to him wanting to play with his father in law, (c) Barry not getting injured at inopportune times, (d) Barry's personality not messing up the Knicks balance/chemistry. I don't think any of those are a given.

[Owly]

Hakeem being drafted by the blazers could have changed the 80's and 90's conpletely

Terry porter, drexler and hakeem (maybe can even get buck williams still) Pretty much would be a top contender every year between 1985-1996

Could easily lead to a scenario where winning more rings leads to hakeem being seen as better than jordan

I'd never really considered Dream going to another franchise, although obviously possible. He had strong ties to the Houston area so I wonder how he would have done in Portland or elsewhere...I doubt he would have been quite as franchise-loyal if things didn't go his way

I dont see a reason Hakeem wouldn't be loyal if he is winning 3/4/5 Championships.

Keep in mind Hakeem was wanting out of Houston at points prior to winning in 1994.

Whilst some posit a change in mentality from him and maybe at that point winning was the big thing through 1992 Olajuwon's perception was different.

As of '92 opinions differed but the reading I've done seems to tilt anti-Olajuwon.
One source (Barry and Cohn) put it that Olajuwon was requesting a one year extension at $15million. That he'd thrice already successfully attempted renegotiations. That he had a $6m penalty put into his contract for asking to renegotiate (phrasing here is unclear, they don't seem to be saying he paid it, they do call this a fourth attempt at renegotiation, but maybe because it's just an extension it isn't a renegotiation) because he kept doing so. "At about the same time that Houston was saying no, Olajuwon was claiming he had a hamstring injury". They note Houston's doctors cleared him, he refused to pay and was suspended. They say "Olajuwon's behavior was greedy, egregious, galling, godawful, and a lot of other words we can't print in this family publication."
It certainly seems to be the case that Houston were entertaining trades and knew that they would not get an equal value return.

Whilst this is the only year his overall intangibles were criticized (generally lauded for his summer work ethic) though leadership concerns and some indications of wanting out had been noted earlier (though of '90 suggestions of wanting out the suggestion is he felt Houston weren't competitive enough).

Now lacking inside information on his health it is difficult to be certain on the reality and truth of what really went on. But I do think his image, between the title halo and an apparent greater humility later shifted (wiped?) some perceptions (fair or otherwise) of him as greedy, not a leader and even as a problem.

As you have noted with the changing circumstances we cannot be certain in general. I would say the 3-5 titles seems bullish for the cast mentioned (which in any case shouldn't include Williams, acquired for Bowie [whose pick is now presumably Olajuwon] and a pick that became Blaylock). Anything above 3 means (1) winning in a year in which without Olajuwon they were below 4 SRS and (2) holding together that core whilst also paying Olajuwon, (3) winning the title in each year where we could make them front runners and were already very strong (though by '92 they are up against a historically elite team) doing all three of those seems like a big ask and they'd have to do all 3 to get 4+.

[Owly]

After Hakeem and Jordan win the title in their rookie year alongside second year Drexler, and the resulting dynasty forms, who do you think gets the lion's share of the credit?

Do we have credible sources on this being a real prospect.

Olajuwon has noted it long after the fact and people have run with it (Simmons notably). Are there any contemporary sources saying that deal was available? I don't recall it in Bondy's book on that draft.

Olajuwon's presentation is Portland offering

Clyde Drexler and the number two pick for either me [me: i.e. number one pick] or Ralph Sampson.

It's not completely wild at the time. And I get that on both sides offering a deal terrible to your team, and not accepting a hugely beneficial one would be something one kept quiet. I just don't know that a player would be the one with all the permutations on a deal and recall it accurately long afterwards (when they have a book to sell).

It's now known enough to become a "what if" but I'm not certain this was ever actually close to happening (not to say confidently it wasn't, but ...).

[tsherkin]

Memphis didnt own their pick if i am not mistaken but him, pau and battier would be really good

Add some guard shooters and if possible good defenders to those 3 and you would make a fantastic team

Does this matter for a fantasy hypothetical, though?

EDIT: What I mean is, are we holding ourselves to what COULD have happened? OP is a little vague on that.

As per above (in post 5, if via video at circa 15:50) Grizzlies owned their pick if it landed first, that was the limit of the protection, it was LeBron or bust for them. Grizzlies had 6th worst record so they weren't "owed" landing this pick ... but they were still in with a chance down to the final 2.

That doesnt address my question, though. I was trying to determine if we are confining ourselves to what xould have actually happened or are open to any option based on how the OP was written. Either way is cool, just looking for clarification.

[Owly]

Does this matter for a fantasy hypothetical, though?

EDIT: What I mean is, are we holding ourselves to what COULD have happened? OP is a little vague on that.

As per above (in post 5, if via video at circa 15:50) Grizzlies owned their pick if it landed first, that was the limit of the protection, it was LeBron or bust for them. Grizzlies had 6th worst record so they weren't "owed" landing this pick ... but they were still in with a chance down to the final 2.

That doesnt address my question, though. I was trying to determine if we are confining ourselves to what xould have actually happened or are open to any option based on how the OP was written. Either way is cool, just looking for clarification.

Okay yes ... although then you open somewhat a debate about the boundaries of "could" ...

But regardless it's pertinent in that this example (which you responded to a ... criticism? ... of) is within the bounds of discussion even within a narrow definition as the pick was protected so LeBron landing in Memphis was plausible; indeed he was the only plausible Memphis pick.

But of course you question can be worth asking to frame the debate regardless.

[tsherkin]

Okay yes ... although then you open somewhat a debate about the boundaries of "could" ...

Well, yes, but that's why I was asking the question, heh.

But of course you question can be worth asking to frame the debate regardless.

I honestly just want to know the parameters of the exercise, that's all. Either way it goes is neat, I just want to know what the driving idea is, that's all

[Colbinii]

Ray Allen staying with Minnesota.
Timberwolves drafting Steph Curry.

[Joao Saraiva]

Kobe to Charlotte is probably the one that brings the most difference. He'd still be great but winning one in there would be extremely difficult.

Kevin Garnett to any competent franchise. Or just swap him with Duncan and we might have a much bigger talk about who is the best PF of all time. If he ends somewhere like the Spurs I'd probably go as further as saying he's in the discussion for the best player of his generation.