Mark Cuban made his feelings about the Chris Paul trade saga public back in December, and reiterated them last night as the Mavericks and Clippers squared off in Dallas:

The right deal, in Cuban's opinion, would have been none at all, even if that meant losing Paul for nothing at the end of the season.

"You're better off just taking the cap room, or whatever," Cuban said.

... "I don't think it was about the Lakers, per se," Cuban said before the game. "I think it was just the way they did the deal, which was ridiculous. I don't think it was about which team. I think it was the fact that, even with the Clippers, we just went through this whole (collective bargaining agreement) and said the incumbent team still has the advantage and then the team the league owns (wimps) out. And look how it's worked out for them.

"Bad management gets you bad results."

That was meant as a jab at NBA commissioner David Stern, not Hornets general manager Dell Demps.

"It's not about being better or worse," Cuban said when asked to compare the offers for Paul. "It's hard to judge any trade until it's done. It's about the concepts involved and the integrity of what we went through for the CBA. That's what it's all about. (The league office) screwed the pooch either way.

"The whole idea about having most of these rules is that you'd have an advantage and wouldn't have to trade people."

Cuban has made a bunch of smart points about the clumsiness of the events surrounding Paul's departure from New Orleans, but here's where I take issue with his logic. He's repeatedly stated that the negotiations of the new collective bargaining agreement should have empowered the Hornets to dig their heels in and hold on to Paul for the full duration of his contract. After all, why fight for a new CBA only to cave on the very principles the battle was waged when a superstar asks out?!

The problem here is that the new CBA didn't adequately address the issue Cuban refers to with regard to the incumbent team still having an advantage at retaining the services of a superstar. Yes, the Hornets would still be able to offer Paul more money than any other club -- and I also agree with Cuban that letting Paul walk while getting nothing in return wouldn't have been the worst outcome for the Hornets -- but what other assets do they have other than some abstract notion of incumbency?

If the league's owners were serious about giving teams like the Hornets the leverage they needed to hang on to players like Paul, they should have demanded a franchise tag, plain and simple. While they were at it, they should have also radically reformed a system that rewards franchises with low-priced, high-ceiling talent when they dump good players. The Lakers/Rockets package was rejected, in some part, because the players coming to New Orleans would've made the Hornets too competitive which, in turn, would've made it difficult for New Orleans to get its hands on the best young talent on the draft board for the foreseeable future. [I personally disagree with the first proposal and agree with the second].

Cuban's frustration is understandable and even justified on many levels. But the idea that the new CBA should've prompted the Hornets to hang onto Paul doesn't pass muster. The incentives simply weren't strong enough -- otherwise Paul would still be a Hornet. The spirit of the law and the law itself are two very different things.