Ron Artest or Mike Miller?

cfan79 · Post #1 » by **cfan79** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:47 pm

Who would be a better player off the bench for the C's? Ron Artest can defend, but of course is Mike Tyson nuts. Mike Miller on the other hand isn't as good a defender, but can shoot and handle the ball.

GreenGrizz · Post #2 » by **GreenGrizz** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:54 pm

Artest. Doc and Ainge thinks defense more important than ever.

Post #3 » by **SuperDeluxe** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:13 pm

Which one of the two would accept coming off the bench? I voted that one, even if the other is the better player.

cfan79 · Post #4 » by **cfan79** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:18 pm

GreenGrizz wrote:Artest. Doc and Ainge thinks defense more important than ever.

But look at what Thibodeau has done with great offensive players like Ray Allen. Plus Mike Miller would provide outside shooting when Ray isn't in the game. Sure House can do that, but we don't know how long he'll be with us.

cisco · Post #5 » by **cisco** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:23 pm

Mike Miller. Artest wouldn't fit on this team, because he won't take to coming off the bench. This is a guy who wanted to be the focus of the offense so he can get a big contract like other top scorers. He actually mentioned scoring more to get a fat contract. :nonono:

cfan79 · Post #6 » by **cfan79** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:28 pm

cisco wrote:Mike Miller. Artest wouldn't fit on this team, because he won't take to coming off the bench. This is a guy who wanted to be the focus of the offense so he can get a big contract like other top scorers. He actually mentioned scoring more to get a fat contract.

You're probably right. Mike Miller is also a Doc Rivers favorite from their days in Orlando when Miller won the Rookie of the year award.

The Rondo Show · Post #7 » by **The Rondo Show** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:43 pm

Artest. He's a top 10 or 15 overall talent in the NBA. He is a headcase, but he's also a competitor who works his ass off every night. I'd trust KG/Pierce/Ray to keep him in line w/his offensive demands and demands to start. Miller would be awesome off the bench, too, though.

Both are pretty unrealistic options to get.

Rocky5000 · Post #8 » by **Rocky5000** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:46 pm

I like Artest better, but I don't think he'd fit in with the team with have. If we didn't have Ray, I'd start paul at SG, with Artest at the SF. That would be a defensive nightmare for other teams with Tony and Posey off the bench. I think Mike Miller is much better suited for an instance offense type of role that you want off from the bench with this team. We already have a defensive stopper in Tony off the bench, so Artest would be in some ways superfluous as a bench player. Add in the relationship between Doc and Miller, and Artest's history of bad behavior and Miller looks like the better fit.
I don't think that it's likely that we get either of those players though. I think the position we need to look to strengthen is C, even though Perk has been playing well as of late. I think we just need a quicker 5 than Perk.

cisco · Post #9 » by **cisco** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:22 pm

Rocky5000 wrote:I like Artest better, but I don't think he'd fit in with the team with have. If we didn't have Ray, I'd start paul at SG, with Artest at the SF. That would be a defensive nightmare for other teams with Tony and Posey off the bench. I think Mike Miller is much better suited for an instance offense type of role that you want off from the bench with this team. We already have a defensive stopper in Tony off the bench, so Artest would be in some ways superfluous as a bench player. Add in the relationship between Doc and Miller, and Artest's history of bad behavior and Miller looks like the better fit.
I don't think that it's likely that we get either of those players though. I think the position we need to look to strengthen is C, even though Perk has been playing well as of late. I think we just need a quicker 5 than Perk.

I would never bring in another player and make Paul move to a position where he is not as effective. SF is Paul's natural position and where he produces the most and plays the best. He wouldn't be as good defensively either, trying to guard smaller, quicker shooting guards.

Artest wouldn't fit on this team unless he came off the bench, which he wouldn't.

Jammer · Post #10 » by **Jammer** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:58 pm

No way the Celtics will go near Artest.

And I am in no way referring to his performance on the basketball court.

I've previously given some great examples of Ron's danger to his teammates health
(body slamming Michael Jordan during a summer scrimmage,
knocking out teenage friend Elton Brand when they were on the Bulls,
and other forms of Ron Artest luv).

threrf23 · Post #11 » by **threrf23** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:20 am

Mike Miller's not a bad player but is far from what we need. What he brings to the table is an offensively efficient and versatile SG, and we already have Ray Allen for that. My opinion would be different if he was younger and had more upside and could be groomed as Ray Allen's replacement down the line.

threrf23 · Post #12 » by **threrf23** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:30 am

I'm not addressing my support for Artest which I've mentioned in other threads, but Jeff Foster's another potential FA I like. Can't get enough quality big man depth. Plus that would allow us to play KG @ SF on occasion...really we can do that now in spot situational minutes, I'm disappointed that we haven't seen that once this year. IMO Doc underutilizes KG's versatility a little bit in this sense.

cisco · Post #13 » by **cisco** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:04 pm

threrf23 wrote:I'm not addressing my support for Artest which I've mentioned in other threads, but Jeff Foster's another potential FA I like. Can't get enough quality big man depth. Plus that would allow us to play KG @ SF on occasion...really we can do that now in spot situational minutes, I'm disappointed that we haven't seen that once this year. IMO Doc underutilizes KG's versatility a little bit in this sense.

I always liked Jeff Foster. I'd love it if we were able to get him.

Post #14 » by **canman1971** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:10 pm

Artest is a poison pill. Why don't people see that? I'd take neither.

TheCelticTruth · Post #15 » by **TheCelticTruth** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:35 pm

mike miller. he has some great games here and there is solid with a complete game if not great skills besides his perimeter offensive skills, and he doesnt have the team ruining potential of artest

The Rondo Show · Post #16 » by **The Rondo Show** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:47 pm

canman1971 wrote:Artest is a poison pill. Why don't people see that? I'd take neither.

You wouldn't want Mike Miller or Artest on your team if you could get them for nothing but $6M or so? That's crazier than Ron Artest. They both can ball.

Artest also has a positive impact on the court. Kings are +76 w/him on the court, -228 w/him off the court. You just can't count on Artest as your star player because he's capable of being suspended indefinitely at any moment, but he's not a chuck up shot after shot/be extremely inefficient/not try on D type player. He helps teams win basketball games when he's not suspended or injured.