So your arguent is that because the lakers offered the same as houston thats what his worth was? Thats just plain wrong.
He was absolutely worth more. Lets say for the sake of argument that artest has been a good replacement and he does everything ariza did. (which is wrong.) What is the difference? artest is 31 and ariza is 24. Ariza has so much more potential left. Thats why ariza and his "camp" were upset.
Ariza was worth more plain and simple. He expected the lakers to offer more than houston and they didnt. He had every right to want more and he should have. The fact that houston paid him the same has no releveance really. He pretty much signed with houston because he was pissed off. We'll see who can fill ariza's shoes this year in the playoffs.
That's not how you determine what a player is worth. The market dictates worth. No other team in the NBA was willing or able to pay Ariza more than what both LA and Houston offered. You're saying the Lakers should have overpaid Ariza simply because he believed he was worth more than his market value. That's just plain wrong.
He signed with Houston because that was the best offer he could get when LA signed Artest. They only signed Artest
after making the same offer to Ariza.
Ariza rejected a deal from the Lakers and then signed with Houston for the same amount of money, to play for a far worse team. Now that was dumb.
But we'll see what happens in the playoffs. I could be wrong, but I'll be very surprised if LA loses because of Artest (or the loss of Ariza).