Sheed does it pretty often. More than anyone else in the league at least.

Understood. But as you well know, when you start bumping into the luxury tax, $2 million can easily cost you $10 million - and that's real money. Moving Delfino didn't save us a bundle either, but when you're at the threshold, every little bit counts.

And a trade partner might also find his cost to performance ratio attractive. Joe would have to give up something attractive in order to get something of value in return.

JMax plays like a bull. But I don't see him becoming a bully in the Rick Mahorn sense. He's not nasty, mean-spirited, cruel, or dirty on the court. Opposing teams hated Rick Mahorn. I think other teams will respect Maxiell's strength and the level of force he plays with, but I don't think they'll hate him like they hated Mahorn.

Interesting

Corliss never played small forward. He played the "4" and the "5", and there were times when he "cross-guarded" the other team's "3". This was usually when paired with Cliffy and and Zelly. That's why Nasty was quoted right before a Lakers game as saying, "I'm playing the four tonight, right coach?", the obvious joke being that he didn't want to play the five that night and bang with Shaq. Corliss would often go to the mid post, while Cliffy would slide over to the 3.

Corliss Williamson never played small forward.

You can't tell what position a guy is playing by looking at who they are guarding.

It doesn't work that way.

The numbered postions are purely offensive designations, used to reflect responsibilities when drawing up set plays. Who somebody guards, at any given time, is based purely on matchups. For instance, there will be times when Rip is guarding the opposing point, Prince is on the opposing SG, and Chauncey is on the other swing, who could nominally be considered a SF. Now, does anybody here think that Rip is playing point and Billups is playing SF? Of course not. Position is based on offensive responsibilities. If you're regularly setting up in the post, then you're most likely playing either the four or five. That's where Maxiell will play. He may occasionally guard a combo-forward who is nominally a SF, but that has nothing to do with what postion he is playing.

__________________
"I'm still glad that we didn't shake their hands," Bill Laimbeer said Wednesday. "They were whiners and criers. Piss on them."

Well said.

JTrain, gee, I watched every game Corliss ever played for us. I can assure you, he was often our backup small forward. If you don't agree with that, then you simply have never been watching the games. Now, if you want to talk about just who did what, hey, sure, Corliss Williamson was certainly not acting much like a small forward, on either end of the floor, while in the game. But that does not matter. What matters is who backs up our small forward. Who gets the minutes when Tay rests. That man can be Maxiell, just like once upon a time Corliss came in to back up the small forward position for us.

In our championship season, after that game five disaster vs. NJ, Corliss became the primary backup to Tay, dropping Ham from the rotation. And we slaughtered everyone in sight from that point. Corliss was very effective indeed in backing up Tay. You want to talk semantics, hey go find someone else to talk to. Not interested.

Who somebody replaces in a game has nothing to do with what position they play.

Nothing.

If Stuckey comes in for Tay, does that make him our small forward? Probably not. It most likely means that Rip moves over. You would see a propensity for baseline movement early in sets as opposed to him lining up at the foul line extended. This isn't complicated, Cliff or Stack played the "3" when Corliss came in. That's why Cliff would move from the high post to the perimeter.

This isn't complicated, nor is it any kind of hidden knowledge.

What is very clear is that you have no idea what a small forward actually is.

__________________
"I'm still glad that we didn't shake their hands," Bill Laimbeer said Wednesday. "They were whiners and criers. Piss on them."

Well, like I said, I will not argue with you. Have a great evening.