GBPackers47 wrote:MiltownMadness wrote:GBPackers47 wrote:This thread is going to age like milk.
The board is going to demand that Horst dump Trent for peanuts at some point this season, just like they did with Beasley.
Find little things that one does better than the other all you want, but the fact of the matter is they both suck. There's a reason it's week 3 of FA and dude is picking up a minimum contract.
Hell, this is the first time teams had to spend to hit the salary floor by the time the new league year started with the new CBA and the guy still couldn't get a deal.
Yes, signing Trent for the minimum is better than not signing Trent for the minimum, but anyone thinking this is anything different than Beasley last year is delusional.
Beasley was apart of one of the best 5 man lineups in basketball last year. The bar is very low.
So why not just play Pat there if the bar is so low?
I've wanted Pat gone for a long time, but he's a better defender than Trent and has better career advanced stats than Trent.
My point is a lot of folks are talking themselves into believing this is so much better than the Beasley signing. It isn't. It's the same.
The Bucks likely wouldn't have signed Beasley last yr if they had already traded Jrue for Dame. So their perception is likely different here.
There's discernibly better quickness, length, & awareness from Beasley. Bease was sort of thick bodied, couldn't anticipate a move, & would lose his man for long periods while he was watching the rest of the action.
You'll simply not see people ever thinking Bease was ever a decent or good defender, whereas you see that opinion semi-common among fans of GT's prior teams. Early in his career he was perceived as a good defender & he played a lot next to Dame.
If Trent was such a bad defender & 1:1 to Bease, why has Trent played 30+ both playoffs, & Bease never even 22? I doubt it's Trent's sparkling ts% of 50. Bease has actually been better in that department.
