You obviously have no idea how an offense works either. Try playing 4 on 5 on offense. They will sag off him clog the middle, if we set a screen they won't have to make decision they will hedge to the screener every time. Our best shooter or the ball handler will get doubled frequently because they don't have to guard him. You scream about our offense isn't the problem but you can't ruin your offense to fix your defense.
Did you ever play the game
One bad or non-shooter does not ruin an offense. We played Nixon and Jacobson as starters most of last season, and teams’ responses to them was... sagging off and then daring them to shoot it. Heck, they begged those two to shoot it. They often obliged, and Nixon was Brick City most of the season. Jacobson was slightly better but still pretty ugly.
Eastern is wash with those guys as a shooter, presents an upgrade as a slasher, and is an incredible upgrade on defense. I appreciate your appreciation for spacing on offense, but you cannot be as impossibly absolutist about it as you are attempting to be right now. There are other phases to the game, and you can build a successful offense with somebody besides just having five crack shooters out there.
The problem with last season was not our 7th in the conference shooting. It was our historically bad defense. You can afford to trade a little on offense if it gets your defense out of whatever cavern that was a few hundred feet below the cellar last year. I doubt we end up with this guy in any event, but our roster last year had one elite two-way player in Tyrese, a bunch of guys okay on offense but bad at defense, and then a bunch of bad players. A guy who is negative on offense and elite on defense represents a substantial upgrade on virtually every one of our returners save probably Bolton and Young. We are nowhere near good enough to be as picky as what you are suggesting.
Michigan is way better than us and wanted him.