Diaw one of Hawks’ greatest blunders ever

emeans · May 26, 2006

Quote:

A year ago, Boris Diaw wasn’t deemed good enough to play in 16 games for one of the worst teams in NBA history. The same Boris Diaw scored 34 points and hit the winning basket in Game 1 of the Western Conference finals Wednesday. For all the teeth-gnashing spawned by the Hawks’ drafts over the years, their mishandling of Diaw stands as the greatest mistake since they re-upped Jon Koncak in the summer of 1989.

A confession: Based on his two seasons as a Hawk, I didn’t think Diaw could play. (Or, more precisely, I didn’t think he cared to play.) Billy Knight obviously saw something more, having drafted Diaw with the 21st pick in 2003 when Josh Howard was available. Somehow that vision wasn’t transmitted to Knight’s coaches.

Because Diaw’s two seasons here involved two head coaches — Terry Stotts in 2003-04 and Mike Woodson in 2004-05 — it’s not fair to lay the entire blame at the foot of one man. But it’s instructive that Diaw played in 10 more games and logged an average of seven more minutes as a rookie under Stotts than as a second-year man under Woodson. Diaw worked fewer minutes for a team that finished 13-69 than Tony Delk, whose career is nearly over. Think about that.

Think about an organization that claims its focus is on player development failing to develop the guy who would go to Phoenix in the Joe Johnson sign-and-trade and turn into the NBA’s Most Improved Player. Knight contends that it’s wrong to make too much of this seeming transcendence, saying the Suns’ free-flowing style can’t be compared to any other team’s. “Boris is in a good situation,” Knight said. And then: “You think having Steve Nash makes a difference?”

Which brings us, rather neatly, to larger issues: If the Suns could get the most out of one of the Hawks’ many young swingmen by playing full-tilt basketball, shouldn’t the Hawks consider doing likewise? If you’re thinking outside the box and building a roster of swingmen, do you want the stodgy Woodson — whose mentors are old-schoolers Bobby Knight and Larry Brown — as your coach? Finally, if a point guard like Nash makes so much difference, why don’t the Hawks have a point guard?

Even his detractors would concede that Knight has assembled more talent than the Hawks have had this century, but assembling talent is only half the battle. (The lesser half, actually.) To succeed, the assembly must conform to a design. Why import a rookie head coach to guide a developing team? Why not hire someone older and more patient? Why keep giving heavy minutes to Al Harrington, who won’t be part of the Hawks’ future, as opposed to Marvin Williams, who’s expected to be a cornerstone? Why not give Diaw every chance to fail?

The Hawks saw Diaw more as a point guard; the Suns, who as we know have a point guard, deploy him down low to stunning effect. When Diaw was drafted, he was touted as being able to play any position. Shouldn’t the Hawks have tried him at every position? Shouldn’t Knight have suggested that Woodson lose not with journeymen like Delk and Tom Gugliotta but with the young guys Knight has gone to such lengths to find?

Everyone makes a mistake in the draft. It’s far more alarming to have drafted a bona fide player and to see him blossom only after he’s gone. “At one point there was a label on [Diaw] that he was a soft, non-competitive player,” Phoenix coach Mike D’Antoni told reporters Wednesday night. “He’s just the opposite. … He’s one of the most competitive guys we have, just an intelligent basketball player who knows how to play.”

Presumably Diaw knew how to play all along, but the Hawks couldn’t decide what to do with him. More than the 125 losses this franchise has suffered the last two years, the Diaw fizzle stands as evidence the Hawks don’t even know what they have, let alone where they’re going.

Mark Bradley

drzachary · May 26, 2006