I am glad to see this discussion and the points being made. This aligns with my previously-stated belief that the Mavs don't see themselves as having some sort of massive unfilled hole at SG that they are desperately trying to fill -- if all of Max, Tarik, and ZR easily fill that whatever-you-wanna-call-it slot (along with Klay), and I think they do, then the Mavs the only thing remaining on their plate is to find a good way to reduce the roster by one player.
My personal belief is that on today's rosters there's a lot of flexibility for who plays where, especially the players in the middle, and for the most part it's likely to look like this:
5 - BIG/CENTER
4,3,2 - 3 WINGS of various size, skills, etc
1 - POINT (typically small)
The preference is to have some position flex across those 3 categories, with some bigger wing(s) who can perhaps play center at times (and maybe vice versa), and some other wing(s) who can perhaps play point at times (and maybe vice versa).
I see an easily proportionate Mavs roster, that fits the above archetype, with 3 bigs, 3 points, and the rest in the middle, and plenty of position-flex players in the mix.
My personal belief is that on today's rosters there's a lot of flexibility for who plays where, especially the players in the middle, and for the most part it's likely to look like this:
5 - BIG/CENTER
4,3,2 - 3 WINGS of various size, skills, etc
1 - POINT (typically small)
The preference is to have some position flex across those 3 categories, with some bigger wing(s) who can perhaps play center at times (and maybe vice versa), and some other wing(s) who can perhaps play point at times (and maybe vice versa).
I see an easily proportionate Mavs roster, that fits the above archetype, with 3 bigs, 3 points, and the rest in the middle, and plenty of position-flex players in the mix.
![[-]](https://www.mavsboard.com/images/collapse.png)