Well hold on a second now- "versatility" may have a different meaning to you. To me, versatility means that a player can play two positions well, or at the very least be able to play one position well, and cover another position (or a skill) adequately.
D. Green is versatile because he can play SF in a big lineup or a PF in a small lineup, AND he can handle the ball and even run the offense. Magic Johnson was versatile because he could play 1, 3, or a 4 very effectively. Penny Hardaway was a very good shooting guard, but he could play PG effectively. Grant Hill could run the offense for a while even though he was a great small forward.
Just because Booker can handle the ball, it doesn't mean that he can (or should) play PG. Just because he could technically play SF, doesn't mean that Booker at 3 is a good thing. You are sliding a BIG shooting guard into being an undersized SF, and sliding Warren (a bif SF) out of the rotation. That's my main gripe with Bledsoe and especially Knight- they are not versatile, they are just not very good or effective in either position. That's not versatility- that's not being either.
You and a lot of others oversimplify "positionless" basketball and mischaracterise "versatility." Put players in the best position to be successful. If you have players who are legitimately good at multiple positions- great! Don't try to fit square pegs into a round whole just because you happen to have those pieces.