Cuban talks about decisions on Nash and Kidd

and makes sense.

It's about length of committment: 6 years vs. 1 1/2 years. For a franchise on the rise, committment equates to risk. An injury hobbled, big money Nash could've wrecked a franchise on the rise.

In retrospect, having seen that Nash has stayed healthy, it was obviously a mistake to have let Nash go. And, if you could go back to when Nash left Dallas, even with the injury uncertainty of that time, you would now wish you had said 1) Nash is good enough, and 2) winning a championship is difficult and iffy enough, that signing an injury prone Nash ought to be done.