Ron Artest to Celtics instead of Ray Allen

[migya]

Ron Artest was traded to the Kings for Stojakovic in 2006 during the 05-06 season. Had the Celtics traded for him with a similar package they used to trade for Allen, and Garnett goes there for 2008, would Boston perform better and win more championships?

Would they make it to the finals in 2009 and would they have beaten the Lakers in 2010? Do they beat Miami in 2011 and do they keep Pierce and Garnett for longer and possibility contend for a couple more years?

Artest was a bit younger than Allen.

[SHAQ32]

What happens to James Posey?

[migya]

What happens to James Posey?

He does exactly the same as the backup SF. Pierce goes SG.

[HeartBreakKid]

Hard to say how he would be used. I would think they win 2008.

2009, they might lose to the Bulls in round 1.

2010....hm....yeah, they probably would win. Allen was hurting bad, and the Lakers wouldn't have Ron Artest themselves in this situation. It's probably more likely they win 2010 than they do 2008.

2011, they would lose to Miami still, by 2011 Ron Artest wasn't that great.

KG and Pierce are traded the same time they were in real life.

[migya]

Artest wasn't the shooter Allen was but he was a pretty good shooter. He scored well also. The big margin defensively is where the value is. The Celts with Artest could've been better and their defense most certainly becomes incredible, not seeing many of those teams those seasons beating them.

[Slava]

I might be mixing up years here but a defensive line up of Garnett/Artest/Pierce/Tony Allen/Rondo could have been scary good in a Thibodeu scheme. They might have to win games 75-70 but it would be a slog to play them.

[mikejames23]

I think they net about the same type of result. 2010 maybe worse, because Artest wasn't all that great by then. 08 would likely be their peak, where they would defensively decimate everyone. Tony Allen + Artest on the perimeter + KG inside is a crew I'd like to watch.

Artest in 08 can also shoot from the 3. I think he averages around 17/5 and plays good D.
Artest in 09 downgrades a little to maybe about 14/5
Artest in 10 downgrades further to 12/5.

I am curious if Boston can win it all in 09 if KG is healthy, but that's about it.

[TheoryHeretic]

Quite frankly, I think the Celtics would had been better off.

The 2008 Celtics were known to be defensive kingpins and having Artest instead of Ray Allen would be a huge upgrade at this end.

Offensively, when the 2008 Celtics won, Allen averaged 16 ppg. While that is a mark that Artest was able to achieve, it was not a ppg he managed when he was with the Lakers-he was around 10ppg. Artest while playing as a third option role would not had been able to fulfill that same ppg Allen did for Boston. Having said that, I believe the Celtics' improved defense would cover this difference and that KG and/or PP could had accounted for this shortfall anyway.

So overall verdict-the Celtics would had become much stronger defensively while any downgrade on the offensive end would had been covered. The Celtics also got younger.

2008: No difference. Boston would win it.
2009 and 2010: I see Artest bothering Kobe just enough to give the Celtics the edge here. If KG shut down Gasol and Artest slows down Kobe, where was the Lakers going to find the points? It would really on who the Lakers have to replace Artest.

2011 is going to be extremely difficult to predict. It would be KG/PP/Artest vs LeBron/Wade/Bosh. Not going to be a popular thought, but I will go with Boston on this one. I think putting Artest on LBJ is going to really throw a spanner in the Heat's plans. LeBron's 2011 NBA Finals performance showed that he was mentally not ready yet. Can you imagine putting mad man Artest on LBJ?

In my opinion, in theory, Boston would had 4-peated if they traded for Artest instead of Allen...but that's pretty much on hindsight and quite a fair of assumptions.