Macri’s Missives is a weekly column published on The Strickland every Thursday, where Jonathan Macri has a candid email exchange with a guest — or in today’s case, guests. Think of it like a written podcast. This week, Macri is joined by two friends from his former law career — Yash Manjunath, a civil defense attorney in St. Louis, and Bernard Ozarowski, who writes for Loud and Clear Reviews — to dive into some offseason topics, including a particularly insult-filled Chris Paul exchange that could only really happen among close friends.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 4:00 PM, Jonathan Macri wrote:

HEY THERE, FRIENDS!

So I've been doing these things for over a month now, and I figure that's long enough for me to get away with having my first "I'm just going to bullshit with my two buddies about random Knicks nonsense" column for The Strickland. Winning plan, I think.

Also, there's not much going on at the moment. I mean, for Christ's sake, I wrote not one, but two Julius Randle-centric newsletters this week. I've officially broken through the bottom of the barrel and hit dirt. Someone give me a hot take.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 4:21 PM, Bernard Ozarowski wrote:

I have a 14-day-old daughter who is fucking nocturnal. I also have a 2-year-old son who seems to delight in waking up the baby. I'm moving to a different state in two days. Yet somehow, nothing this week has made me feel more drained and withered than reading about Julius fucking Randle in the newsletter.

Here's your hot take: Ignas Brazdeikis will be a more important part of the team than Kevin Knox next year and a legitimately useful player in the rotation. I think he'll sync well with what Thibs values in a player.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 4:36 PM, Jonathan Macri wrote:

You know, here I was feeling bad for your current plight (not really), and now you've gone and made me feel even worse (also a lie).

It's funny... bloggers and the like have pumped out literally dozens of pieces about all the drek on the Knicks roster over the last six months, and yet I don't think I've read one insightful thing about Iggy, despite the fact that he profiles as A) a Thibs guy to a T, as you say, and B) was one of only three G-Leaguers last season to put up 20 points, seven boards and five 3-point attempts per game. Josh Jackson (good!) was one of the three. Henry Ellinson (baaaad) was the other.

So let's live in your dream world: Iggy is worthy of being part of the rotation. Does that mean they should sell Knox for X cents on the dollar now? Or save Brazdeikis for a mid-season deployment?

Yash, other than his taste in the ladies (which I know you approve of) where are you on the former Wolverine?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Yash Manjunath wrote:

I am… cautiously optimistic about Iggy.

I think it’s close to an even money bet that he’s a more valuable contributor than Knox next year (assuming Knox is on the team). But I wouldn’t go just giving up on Knox yet either. He’s had to deal with working conditions so awful they’re worthy of an OSHA complaint, and now he’ll have actual, competent coaching to aid in his development.

Let’s also not forget that Knox’s own college coach said he’d be a three-year project. I’ll gladly buy low on the Knox stock for this season.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 7:28 PM, Bernard Ozarowski wrote:

I'm going to say something that pains me deeply to say, and no woman free from duress has ever said: "I'm with Yash."

Knox's good moments have been so few and far between, and his bad moments so all-encompassing (especially from an advanced metrics perspective) that it's hard to imagine there's much to be had for him in a straight up deal. Someone else's bust? A mid-or-worse second? Meh.

I certainly don't think Knox's pedigree should guarantee him anything anymore — let's let the best players play — and I think a fair competition for time with Brazdeikis makes sense from a rosterbation perspective too. Knox certainly doesn't exude the feel of a Thibs favorite, and it bears noting that he didn't exactly break out under Mike Miller.

But, I am curious to see if Kenny Payne can work a little magic in rekindling his old connection with Knox. Maybe that gets Knox right and he becomes a viable NBA rotation player? I'm willing to tender him the fourth year and gamble on Payne, but I'm not guaranteeing him minutes anymore. If Iggy is better, Iggy should play.

And all that said, I'm certainly open to moving Knox in a deal for an actual improvement or draft asset. If Sam Presti gets blackout drunk and decides to trade CP3 for Randle and Knox? I'm happy to watch him make that walk of shame the morning after.

As to Iggy, I bitched and moaned all last season about just giving him a shot. It seems like much of the sludge taking the minutes that could've been used to see if Iggy is a credible enough athlete to make it in The Association should, mercifully, be gone.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 7:37 PM, Jonathan Macri wrote:

Aren't we all just waiting to see if it's the same sludge though, repackaged and with a new label slapped on? I don't know... I've gone over and over this in my head: if you want to get better, get actual good NBA players, Chris Paul being the most obvious example. There are a few others. But bringing in other one-year vets to take time away from a guy like Brazdeikis when we don't even really know what he is yet?

But then again (close your ears Bernard), what if he just, like... isn't very good? Guys don't typically drop to the 47th pick by accident. At this point, you can say the same thing about Knox.

It's these little push-and-pull questions that make me think more and more that this front office is going to meet Sam Presti's asking price for Paul, because at least if you get him, you don't need to wonder anymore about what the players on your roster are capable of. If they can't succeed with Paul, they're not going to succeed with anyone.

This offseason is the worst.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 7:40 PM, Bernard Ozarowski wrote:

Look, Brazdeikis might be dog shit. Let's find out! Most nights he was the best dude on the court in his G-League games — I think that's enough to give the man a shot on a team that's not exactly overflowing with talent.. If it doesn't work out, I'm sure his dad can start prepping him for a tryout on Dana White's Contenders series. (I love the idea of MMA convert Iggy even more than I love the idea of solid Knick Iggy.)

As for Paul, it took some soul searching, but I'm all in at a reasonable price. I think we've leaned too far into the process that some fans have come out the other side into "never actually winning." Baseball nerds like me call it "prospect hugging” — getting so convinced of the magic of your own future assets that you're forever gun-shy about getting a guy who can actually make a difference now. Chris Paul is going to make every player on that team better. He's going to change the culture overnight. And with our patented Knicks luck, I'm confident we'd end up with like the ninth pick next year anyway and whiff on the real studs. Is he old? Sure. He's still one of the top dozen or so players in the game. And his clout is off the charts — pair that with World Wide Wes' behind-the-scenes voodoo, and who knows what might come to pass over the next few years.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 7:50 PM, Jonathan Macri wrote:

Yash, as the resident never-Paul-er, I'm curious to see what bullshit argument you can muster up against the two people who taught you everything you know about mustering bullshit arguments.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 9:02 PM, Yash Manjunath wrote:

My decidedly non-bullshit argument is that trading for a 35-year-old CP3 is “Same Old Knicks” to a T.

Instead of maximizing our chances for a game-changing talent in a 2021 draft with 6-8 players who’d probably be No. 1 in the upcoming draft, let’s trade actual assets for an overpriced, injury-prone, past-his-prime superstar who won’t be around when this team is ready to be a contender.

This approach is like the simp boyfriend who stays loyal to the girlfriend who keeps cheating on him, or the battered woman who keeps going back to her abusive biker lover. “This time will be different!” Spoiler: No, it won’t.

I love CP3 the player. You can make a legitimate case for him being the third-best point guard of all time, after Magic and Steph. But he’s not the right move for this franchise at this time. Eight to 10 years ago? Different story.

And I’m not saying “tank.” The Knicks can add a veteran point guard who can run a competent offense (DJ Augustin?), a veteran 4 who can actually shoot to help space the floor for RJ (Gallo?), and get their kids minutes, aid their development, raise the value of guys like Knox and Frank, and still position the team for a top-five draft pick.

And speaking of said pick, the Knicks don’t even necessarily need to use that pick themselves. What they really need is “the guy.” A true No. 1 option on a contending team that they can build around for years. They can draft that guy, but they can also dangle that 2021 draft pick as an attractive asset to a team with an unhappy superstar looking to rebuild, and then, boom! You’ve accelerated your rebuild, you’ve spent a year on evaluating the existing young talent on the roster, and you’re back in the playoffs led by a superstar who’ll actually be here for the long haul.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 9:27 PM, Bernard Ozarowski wrote:

So you’d rather fight for the ninth seed in the playoffs instead of the seventh?

Your plan would upset the draft pick anyway, and surround the kids with players less likely to help their development than Paul. I love Gallo. I’d happily welcome him back, but he’s not going to help RJ and Mitch’s growth the way CP3 might.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 9:30 PM, Yash Manjunath wrote:

1. The Knicks are not a ninth seed with Augustin and Gallo. They’re still in contention for a bottom-five roster.

2. They’d have to give up at least one, probably two of their young guys and picks to land Paul.

3. Giving up assets, cap space, and hurting the Knicks’ draft position for 2021 significantly hampers their ability to trade for a disgruntled superstar who’s actually in his prime somewhere down the line.

None of the young players on the current Knicks roster will ever be more than a No. 2 player on a title team, even under perfect development conditions.

Finding “the guy”, whether via trade or through the draft, should be priority one.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 9:57 PM, Jonathan Macri wrote:

Yash, I agree with you that they won't fight for the ninth seed with that dog shit roster. But you're also doing the same thing you always do, by using a 90th percentile outcome to justify your point: being bad, even very bad, assures nothing. Even being the very worst team assures you nothing, and if you do luck into a top three or four pick, even then you have to hope that you don't select the next Marvin Bagley, Josh Jackson, Markelle Fultz, Jahlil Okafor, Jabari Parker, or Andrew Wiggins. And all those guys are just examples from the last six years.

Face it, Yash: I've said myself that I'd prefer an all-out tanking assault if I had my druthers, but it's not like there isn't a very cognizable downside outcome here. The difference between the downside outcome of your path vs. Bernard's is that if you do suck next year and you don't land that star player (either with the pick or via trade), you're the same laughingstock you are now. At least with Paul, odds are they become respectable on and off the court, which obviously comes with innumerable possible ancillary benefits.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 10:07 PM, Yash Manjunath wrote:

Even if I grant you that going the route I described means getting “the guy” via trade or the draft in the near future is a 90th percentile outcome (it’s really more like a 75th percentile outcome, if this FO and coaching staff are as competent as they’re reputed to be), that still beats the less than 1% chance the Knicks have of landing “the guy” in the near future after trading for Paul. 

You won’t be left with enough assets of value at that point to trade for a superstar. Or be able to draft one. So what’s the play? Hope that a stud FA takes less money to come play with a 36/37 year old Paul? GTFOH.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 10:50 PM, Bernard Ozarowski wrote:

What assets are lost? If the deal is — let’s be super generous — Knox, Frank, Randle, the 2023 Dallas pick, and a massively protected first rounder as far into the future as we can, they’re hardly mortgaging the farm. I don’t think anyone is advocating for RJ, Mitch, No. 8 this year, or the first in the double draft to touch a Paul trade. I certainly am not.

Kevin Knox is not an “asset of value” in 2020.

The chance that a stud free agent signs with a newly-competent-feeling Knicks team with a slightly better RJ and Mitch pushed by Paul’s skullduggery behind the scenes is certainly better than whatever happens on a team with DJ and Gallo heading into free agency and only Mitch and RJ around.

Look, I get it — if you’ve lived three decades with a microphallus, you need to find hope and optimism in other aspects of your life. But your optimism here crosses the boundary into insanity.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 10:51 PM, Yash Manjunath wrote:

“The chance that a stud FA signs with a newly competent feeling Knicks team with a slightly better RJ and Mitch pushed by Paul’s skullduggery behind the scenes is certainly better than whatever happens on a team with DJ and Gallo heading into FA and only Mitch and RJ around.”

Yeah, you’re right. I’m the insanely optimistic one. Seek help, both of you.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 11:17 PM, Bernard Ozarowski wrote:

You seem confused by the idea that a 5% chance is better than a 2% one. Plus, competent basketball and a better culture is the best hope to make the Knicks a reasonable destination for free agents over the next decade or so.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020, at 7:04 AM, Yash Manjunath wrote:

You just made up those percentages.

Both of you haven’t even mentioned Paul’s very real injury risk. He’s been getting injured his entire career. He’s only played more than 70 games twice out of the past nine seasons, and you’d be trading for his age-35 season.

At this stage of his career, he’s one more bad injury away from retirement. And it would be classic Knicks for him to tear his Achilles eight games into next season and then be left shaking our heads thinking, “Who could have seen this coming?!”

I just realized Paul is younger than both of you. Could this obsession with trading for him as a solution to any of the Knicks problems be nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to stave off your own gerascophobia?

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020, at 8:43 AM, Jonathan Macri wrote:

Holy Christ, you guys stay up late...

A few things:

1. I've never seen the word "microphallus" before, and now I can't unsee it.

2. I'm not old.

3. You just cross examined yourself into a corner, Yash. If Paul tears his Achilles after eight games next season, the Knicks would be in a MUCH better position to nab the worst record than in any of your alternative scenarios.

Also, this has now gone on longer than all of the previous Macri's Missives... combined. Perhaps inviting two trial lawyers to have a vigorous debate about something they're each passionate about was not the best planning on my part.

Here's my last word: there are too many variables for there to be one "right" answer. If this were a legal matter, it would absolutely be going to trial. There is no settlement-in-sight evidence one side knows that it won't be able to get around at the end of the day. But at my core, which has experienced more despair from this team than I care to admit, and which has spent more time contemplating paths forward than you would probably believe, I believe that they will be better off trading for Paul than not.