"He's a better player," Artest repeated emphatically. "He's won a ring, I haven't. I can't even compare to him. He's a better player."
Artest also agrees, incidentally, with the part about Ariza being a better fit.
"He probably is," Artest said. "He's a role player, a great role player. I haven't been a role player. Many times I've had to carry the load, this is a different look for me."
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke-lakers-20100324,0,1475112.column
Does anyone agree with this? After doubting Ariza could carry a team or even create for himself in Houston, he proved me wrong. I know that if Artest turns it on in the playoffs, he will erase all doubt. But the role Artest plays is a role player, a role that Ariza was accustomed to and excelled in. Does anyone else feel we should have kept Ariza over Artest, or was Artest the right decision? Or is it too early to decide?