TP for your take on the timeline theory. 100% agree. Some posters here seem to think the goal is always to have all of the team's primary players be the exactly the same age!
Does it matter? Every young team doesn't need just young guys. Actually a vet or three on young teams to show them how to be good NBA players is probably advisable. Otherwise you get teams stuck in the "We have tons of young talent but just can't seem to win" mode like Minnesota, Sacramento, Atlanta, Orlando and New Orleans has been in for like a decade.
None of those teams were the 13 seed
Did Kyle Kuzma and Anthony Davis fit LeBron's timeline?
The Cavs aren't going to trade Nance unless they are absolutely blown away. They really like him and being the local kid doesn't hurt.
Does he fit the Cavs timeline though? He is 28 and they have Allen at 22, Garland 21, Sexton 22, and Okoro at 20.
Did Marc Gasol fit in Kawhi's and Siakam's timeline?
Did Andre Iguodala fit the Steph, Klay, Dray timeline?
Did Udonis Haslem with the Heat?
What about Rondo with the Big 3?
The idea of a timeline, sorry my friend, is MASSIVELY overblown and I am not sure it even exists with title winning clubs. Most title winners are experienced, meaning you probably aren't winning a title with an average team age of 24. Most consist of the top players in the league at that time. But they do have important members of the team from different age groups. No title winning team is made up of everyone on the same "timeline?
The whole "timeline" theory is a complete and utter fallacy.
I mean, lol. We have seen teams do this all the time in every sport. I don't even understand what you guys are trying to argue. It is literally the whole concept of rebuilding. I agree you want a few vets around to help the young players develop (ironically a vet minimum player like Haslem is a good example of this). If you have an older player that is making a substantial amount of money, and has value around the league, it is kind of common sense to trade him if you can get good value for him (again ironically, why we traded Rondo when we were going young). And your example of Kuzma is absolutely hilarious cause the Lakers traded literally every other young guy on their roster to get someone who was a star and could win titles during Lebron's timeline. i think that may be the silliest attempt at a point I have read on this board. Thanks for the chuckle.
But that isn't Nance. He is only in year 6. He was an older rookie so he is old for a 6th year man, but he is still only in year 6, so he is just entering his prime and should have a solid 5 or 6 years of prime left. He isn't as valuable as Smart is, but that is how the Cavs view Nance. The Cavs don't think of him as a vet, they think of him as a core piece that will be their starting PF for years to come and they really think they have something with Sexton, Garland, Okoro, Nance, and Allen. I'm not sure they are wrong either, as that has the makings to be a very good team for a long time a few years down the line, and they will still have several years of Nance in his prime at that point. The Cavs are clearly looking to move Drummond and Love, and are also taking offers for Osman. They would move Nance, but it would cost way more than he is worth for the Cavs to move him, so in other words he isn't getting traded.