Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical

Moderators: Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285

Exp0sed
General Manager
Posts: 7,933
And1: 7,375
Joined: Feb 10, 2022

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#81 » by Exp0sed » Sat Mar 8, 2025 7:03 pm

Woodsanity wrote:They wouldn't fail him without reason. He is damaged goods most likely.


If I'd have to guess, what happened was that the circumstances of the trade were right after the Luka trade and right before the deadline. Luka was in shock but the Lakers banked on him being happy and staying happy in L.A so when his camp promptly conveyed that he would like that to acquire a lob-threat center (akin to Lively etc.), someone in the org wanted to make him happy and jumped the gun on this trade, it all happened very fast and it was a hectic couple of days over there, i'm betting

maybe the trade didn't go through all the usual proper channels, maybe someone who wasn't really informed until the deal was already in place weighed in or they had time to look into it deeper and just decided it wasn't really worth it..cold feet

and yes they knew a future arbitration will side with them, because u can always argue that your doctors saw whatever (even if other doctors say disagree, it's ultimately a team's perogative to have their own doctors vet the incoming player)

buyer's remorse, nothing more
LakersSquadup
Sophomore
Posts: 128
And1: 66
Joined: Nov 26, 2020
 

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#82 » by LakersSquadup » Sat Mar 8, 2025 7:04 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:sorry but you can be some national big shot doctor, but if you haven't examined the patient your opinion has no real merit. And none of those doctors would put their name to said opinion without having examined him.

This is meaningless PR.


That part. Just another slimy agent trying to protect their client. He should be thanking the Lakers for not exposing what it is they saw.
Big J
RealGM
Posts: 11,625
And1: 8,757
Joined: May 26, 2020

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#83 » by Big J » Sat Mar 8, 2025 7:05 pm

levon wrote:
Big J wrote:
Homer38 wrote:
But not for his physical....


They failed the physical because they got cold feet.

They failed the physical because of Mark Williams' injured feet.


Yet we all knew he had bad feet before the trade happened.
LakersSquadup
Sophomore
Posts: 128
And1: 66
Joined: Nov 26, 2020
 

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#84 » by LakersSquadup » Sat Mar 8, 2025 7:05 pm

Liam_Gallagher wrote:It was probably cold feet. The Lakers probably heard the stat "Mark Williams has only played in 38% of his career games" and got scared....after they made the trade.


Please tell me you don’t believe the Lakers wasn’t aware of this before making the trade.
User avatar
levon
RealGM
Posts: 17,335
And1: 27,125
Joined: Aug 04, 2017

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#85 » by levon » Sat Mar 8, 2025 7:33 pm

Big J wrote:
levon wrote:
Big J wrote:
They failed the physical because they got cold feet.

They failed the physical because of Mark Williams' injured feet.


Yet we all knew he had bad feet before the trade happened.

So what are you suggesting? Never do a physical? The physical is to figure out the extent of the injury. The exact messaging was the Hornets didn't provide everything, suggesting they withheld info.
Big J
RealGM
Posts: 11,625
And1: 8,757
Joined: May 26, 2020

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#86 » by Big J » Sat Mar 8, 2025 7:48 pm

levon wrote:
Big J wrote:
levon wrote:They failed the physical because of Mark Williams' injured feet.


Yet we all knew he had bad feet before the trade happened.

So what are you suggesting? Never do a physical? The physical is to figure out the extent of the injury. The exact messaging was the Hornets didn't provide everything, suggesting they withheld info.


And the Hornets have disputed that claim.
magee
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 4,462
And1: 2,447
Joined: Jun 22, 2005
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#87 » by magee » Sat Mar 8, 2025 7:57 pm

Big J wrote:
Homer38 wrote:
Big J wrote:
Lakers had knowledge about his history of missing games before they traded for him.


But not for his physical....


They failed the physical because they got cold feet.


They failed the physical because Rob Pelinka cited growth plate issues. Point blank that's why they rescinded the trade. He's still growing into his body.
Big J
RealGM
Posts: 11,625
And1: 8,757
Joined: May 26, 2020

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#88 » by Big J » Sat Mar 8, 2025 8:01 pm

magee wrote:
Big J wrote:
Homer38 wrote:
But not for his physical....


They failed the physical because they got cold feet.


They failed the physical because Rob Pelinka cited growth plate issues. Point blank that's why they rescinded the trade. He's still growing into his body.


Then why did Charlotte dispute this?
User avatar
levon
RealGM
Posts: 17,335
And1: 27,125
Joined: Aug 04, 2017

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#89 » by levon » Sat Mar 8, 2025 8:59 pm

Big J wrote:
levon wrote:
Big J wrote:
Yet we all knew he had bad feet before the trade happened.

So what are you suggesting? Never do a physical? The physical is to figure out the extent of the injury. The exact messaging was the Hornets didn't provide everything, suggesting they withheld info.


And the Hornets have disputed that claim.

Yeah they have every incentive to, and so do Williams and his agent in a contract year. You have no evidence of Lakers' getting cold feet, whereas there is mounting evidence of Williams injuries. Not everything needs to be big-brained. Dudes can just fail physicals.
Handlez
Starter
Posts: 2,237
And1: 2,687
Joined: Dec 27, 2023

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#90 » by Handlez » Sat Mar 8, 2025 9:04 pm

Knecht out here bombing away after getting back.

Very professional of him to take it in stride.
User avatar
zimpy27
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 45,634
And1: 43,873
Joined: Jul 13, 2014

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#91 » by zimpy27 » Sat Mar 8, 2025 9:04 pm

Clearly the Hornets have a lot of faith in his physicals..

Looking forward to them giving him a 4 year fully guaranteed deal.
"Let's play some basketball!" - Fergie
LakersSquadup
Sophomore
Posts: 128
And1: 66
Joined: Nov 26, 2020
 

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#92 » by LakersSquadup » Sat Mar 8, 2025 9:07 pm

facothomas22 wrote:
tamaraw08 wrote:
facothomas22 wrote:Yeah the NBA should step in and investigate this. Something tells the Lakers did something very shady and the GM Ordered the medical staff to fail Mark Williams physical to order to justify backing out of the trade


You really think the Medical Professionals who did all these tests/scans would risk losing their licenses to make up bogus results just because the Lakers asked them to?
From Radiology/MRI techs, Licensed Radiologists, Orthopedic Specialists, Sports Medicine team Doctors? really?



We know teams do shady stuff all the time and are simply hoping the NBA doesn't find out. The Lakers knew he had a injury history before they traded for him. I doubt anything actually showed up that wasn't already known to the public. Teams can fail a player physical based on they deemed to be necessary. The only way you can fail a player physical is they have additional serious medical issues that wasn't already known before. I don't see any evidence that leads us to that. I believe the Lakers simply had cold feet and wanted to save their remaining picks,so they made a excuse to back out of a agreed upon deal.


If it’s a case that the Lakers got cold feet then why didn’t the Hornets file a complaint to challenge it like they said they did but the NBA said no complaint was filed. You’re wrong
LakersSquadup
Sophomore
Posts: 128
And1: 66
Joined: Nov 26, 2020
 

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#93 » by LakersSquadup » Sat Mar 8, 2025 9:20 pm

Big J wrote:
Homer38 wrote:
Big J wrote:
No GM wants him because he sucks, not because he “failed” the Lakers joke of a physical.


If this is a joke in bold,why he has missed so many games in his career?


Lakers had knowledge about his history of missing games before they traded for him.


Stop with this nonsense. If it’s just about seeing how many games a player missed there would be no trade physicals. But trade physicals do exist. Stop trolling
trickshot
Head Coach
Posts: 6,840
And1: 7,541
Joined: Feb 27, 2012

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#94 » by trickshot » Sat Mar 8, 2025 9:24 pm

For what the Lakers would have given up they had every right to conduct his medicals with the highest of expectations. Doesn't matter what was said on social media
User avatar
Dominator83
RealGM
Posts: 21,201
And1: 32,463
Joined: Jan 16, 2005
Location: NBA Hell

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#95 » by Dominator83 » Sat Mar 8, 2025 9:37 pm

Homer38 wrote:Very rare he play 2 games in a week....

Read on Twitter


Damn Hornets not even trying to sell that he's fine
Fantasy Hoops/Football/Baseball fans..

For info on a forum that actually talks Fantasy sports and not spammed with soliciting leagues, PM me. The more the merrier !
User avatar
NyKnicks1714
RealGM
Posts: 26,224
And1: 28,433
Joined: Nov 20, 2001
   

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#96 » by NyKnicks1714 » Sat Mar 8, 2025 9:38 pm

Big J wrote:
magee wrote:
Big J wrote:
They failed the physical because they got cold feet.


They failed the physical because Rob Pelinka cited growth plate issues. Point blank that's why they rescinded the trade. He's still growing into his body.


Then why did Charlotte dispute this?


...because they wanted the trade to go through?
EmpireFalls
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,163
And1: 8,466
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
   

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#97 » by EmpireFalls » Sat Mar 8, 2025 9:38 pm

We’re tanking, they’re sitting half the team
Big J
RealGM
Posts: 11,625
And1: 8,757
Joined: May 26, 2020

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#98 » by Big J » Sat Mar 8, 2025 9:40 pm

LakersSquadup wrote:
Big J wrote:
Homer38 wrote:
If this is a joke in bold,why he has missed so many games in his career?


Lakers had knowledge about his history of missing games before they traded for him.


Stop with this nonsense. If it’s just about seeing how many games a player missed there would be no trade physicals. But trade physicals do exist. Stop trolling


Then why is Charlotte disputing the physical? There is just as much evidence showing that the physical was BS as there is of it not being BS.
Big J
RealGM
Posts: 11,625
And1: 8,757
Joined: May 26, 2020

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#99 » by Big J » Sat Mar 8, 2025 9:41 pm

NyKnicks1714 wrote:
Big J wrote:
magee wrote:
They failed the physical because Rob Pelinka cited growth plate issues. Point blank that's why they rescinded the trade. He's still growing into his body.


Then why did Charlotte dispute this?


...because they wanted the trade to go through?


Exactly, it's a he said she said thing. There is no reason to believe LA's word over Charlottes.
User avatar
NyKnicks1714
RealGM
Posts: 26,224
And1: 28,433
Joined: Nov 20, 2001
   

Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical 

Post#100 » by NyKnicks1714 » Sat Mar 8, 2025 9:58 pm

Big J wrote:
NyKnicks1714 wrote:
Big J wrote:
Then why did Charlotte dispute this?


...because they wanted the trade to go through?


Exactly, it's a he said she said thing. There is no reason to believe LA's word over Charlottes.


No not exactly. The Lakers made the trade then didn't like what they saw in the physical. It's not unprecedented. Charlotte either hid it or more likely simply missed it, and now had extra incentive to have the trade go through. They obviously aren't going to sign him to a long term deal, and he has little trade value now. That and they lost out on an unprotected 1st.

But if you're right and the Lakers lied, Charlotte will give him a long-term contract.

Return to The General Board