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
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
- zimpy27
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 45,634
- And1: 43,872
- Joined: Jul 13, 2014
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
Did you see the dunk LeBron laid on him?
That was the physical, he failed.
That was the physical, he failed.
"Let's play some basketball!" - Fergie
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,949
- And1: 3,015
- Joined: Aug 24, 2005
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
azcatz11 wrote:This is honestly only a story because it involves the Lakers. This stuff happens every year. Cam Whitmore was red flagged by multiple teams before dropping to Houston. As anyone knows who's been involved within the medical community - the doctor's don't know everything and there is always a grey area.
Some guys (Dajuan Blair, Brandon Roy) are redflagged and look good at first but don't have long careers. I like the Hornets, I grew up near Charlotte but as a (now) Angeleno I'm honestly embarrassed at how conspiratorial and pathetic the online Hornets fan community has handled this trade.
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,351
- And1: 1,168
- Joined: Mar 23, 2021
-
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
I actually worked at a office with physicians that actually deal with pro leagues and major athletes.
So I'll address the things I know about situations like this amd things people have said.
Lakers knew he was injured shouldn't have done the trade then - when teams make a deal and player injuries are involved they take on the responsibility of that injury. However when they gon in the physicals and the tests the doctors do are to see if there is anything else they should worry about or if the injury is being downplayed and more severe then the team said work something wasnt disclosed when the trade happens.
Usually in these tests that a player fails it's not the current injury it's something that wasnt known. Example would be hey yeah he only has back problems, docs find put there are heart issues or degenerative knee issues, or the back injury isnt a sliped disc or something minor but something much more serious with the back.
After the drs, usually a team so it's more then one opinion, see these tests and results they go ahead amd send this to the team, which now sends the information to the league office and they share it with the other team involved. Now the original team cant say they didnt know about this information regarding the player in future trades and have to disclose it if trying to deal the player again.
The Hornets in this case could appeal ot only to have themselves cleared from having previous knowledge of the new disclosed injury or severity of said injury. They wouldnt want to be labeled as a team trading damaged goods.
No. These Drs will not risk losing their license or their practices which are usually partnerships with other specialists in the field for any one player or team when they take care of multiple players and teams and athletes nation wide, even world wide. not just regionally.
So I'll address the things I know about situations like this amd things people have said.
Lakers knew he was injured shouldn't have done the trade then - when teams make a deal and player injuries are involved they take on the responsibility of that injury. However when they gon in the physicals and the tests the doctors do are to see if there is anything else they should worry about or if the injury is being downplayed and more severe then the team said work something wasnt disclosed when the trade happens.
Usually in these tests that a player fails it's not the current injury it's something that wasnt known. Example would be hey yeah he only has back problems, docs find put there are heart issues or degenerative knee issues, or the back injury isnt a sliped disc or something minor but something much more serious with the back.
After the drs, usually a team so it's more then one opinion, see these tests and results they go ahead amd send this to the team, which now sends the information to the league office and they share it with the other team involved. Now the original team cant say they didnt know about this information regarding the player in future trades and have to disclose it if trying to deal the player again.
The Hornets in this case could appeal ot only to have themselves cleared from having previous knowledge of the new disclosed injury or severity of said injury. They wouldnt want to be labeled as a team trading damaged goods.
No. These Drs will not risk losing their license or their practices which are usually partnerships with other specialists in the field for any one player or team when they take care of multiple players and teams and athletes nation wide, even world wide. not just regionally.
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
- California Gold
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,269
- And1: 3,781
- Joined: Aug 15, 2013
- Location: Orange County/SF Bay Area/Boston
-
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
People dislike the Lakers so much that they're out here with wild conspiracy theories. Insanity.
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
- Lalouie
- RealGM
- Posts: 23,363
- And1: 12,457
- Joined: May 12, 2017
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
KyRo23 wrote:Not sure what to do with this information. Why? What did the other doctors see? What did the Lakers see?
There is literally no information, I'm not sure what we are to gather from Shams here
i don't think it mattered. williams is an injury riddled player who the lakers wanted to take a flyer on - basically as an ad hoc fix because they had to let go of ad. i saw this as a one year deal to improve the lakers' chances for this one year only in this very small luka/lebron window
i think the risk/reward is incidental. otoh i think it would have only mattered if williams could not play RIGHT NOW - either he can play NOW or forget it
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- 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
magee wrote:Was Pelinka quoted about how he's still growing into his body? If that's the case, it's clearly growth plate issues and erred on the side of caution thinking he would have injuries related to that.
"He's still growing into his body" sums it up. Pretty cut and dry.
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 61,135
- And1: 33,831
- Joined: Oct 15, 2006
-
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
zimpy27 wrote:Did you see the dunk LeBron laid on him?
That was the physical, he failed.
Trying to back LeBron down with that massive body and giving up after not gaining an inch with four power dribbles was a lot worse.



Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,149
- And1: 1,171
- Joined: Dec 15, 2004
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
Without evaluating the patient, it’s impossible to know. It’s a risk/reward. Sometimes the thing matters like with Williams, sometimes, like with LeVert, it mattered more to the player than the team.
We wash out prospective Marines for issues like heart murmurs that may never present an issue. None of it is personal.
The compensation being sent for Williams was high. That was a big risk. I’m more surprised that it wasn’t just adjusted like Isaiah Thomas / Kyrie deal. Not sure it could have been with the deadline or that the docs on both sides were in agreement. Like the used truck in my driveway, I’m far more comfortable with it than anyone else would be.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We wash out prospective Marines for issues like heart murmurs that may never present an issue. None of it is personal.
The compensation being sent for Williams was high. That was a big risk. I’m more surprised that it wasn’t just adjusted like Isaiah Thomas / Kyrie deal. Not sure it could have been with the deadline or that the docs on both sides were in agreement. Like the used truck in my driveway, I’m far more comfortable with it than anyone else would be.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,901
- And1: 2,184
- Joined: Jul 26, 2009
-
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
Dominator83 wrote:He's out tonight for "injury management".
The Bobcats sure aren't trying very hard to convince anyone he's fine lol
He was out for return to play reconditioning. And we are tanking. So yeah. Lamelo sat last night as well. 2nd night of a b2b
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
- Lalouie
- RealGM
- Posts: 23,363
- And1: 12,457
- Joined: May 12, 2017
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
magee wrote:magee wrote:Was Pelinka quoted about how he's still growing into his body? If that's the case, it's clearly growth plate issues and erred on the side of caution thinking he would have injuries related to that.
"He's still growing into his body" sums it up. Pretty cut and dry.
UCLA DOCTOR - MATTER SETTLED



Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
- KingDavid
- Forum Mod - Heat
- Posts: 31,523
- And1: 41,060
- Joined: Sep 04, 2013
-
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
KyRo23 wrote:Not sure what to do with this information. Why? What did the other doctors see? What did the Lakers see?
There is literally no information, I'm not sure what we are to gather from Shams here
Well I think there could implications for violating HIPPA laws if information about his medical results come out without Mark's permission or knowledge.
#HEATLifer
Long Live Kobe Bryant. My idol's idol.
Long Live Kobe Bryant. My idol's idol.
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,170
- And1: 13,700
- Joined: Dec 04, 2013
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
- Optms
- RealGM
- Posts: 23,724
- And1: 20,114
- Joined: Jun 11, 2009
-
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
So which GM is willing to trade assets for Williams knowing he already failed a physical? I bet none. He is damaged goods. Lakers have zero regrets. We're good.
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- 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
Optms wrote:So which GM is willing to trade assets for Williams knowing he already failed a physical? I bet none. He is damaged goods. Lakers have zero regrets. We're good.
No GM wants him because he sucks, not because he “failed” the Lakers joke of a physical.
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,170
- And1: 13,700
- Joined: Dec 04, 2013
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
Big J wrote:Optms wrote:So which GM is willing to trade assets for Williams knowing he already failed a physical? I bet none. He is damaged goods. Lakers have zero regrets. We're good.
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?
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- 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
Homer38 wrote:Big J wrote:Optms wrote:So which GM is willing to trade assets for Williams knowing he already failed a physical? I bet none. He is damaged goods. Lakers have zero regrets. We're good.
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.
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
- Optms
- RealGM
- Posts: 23,724
- And1: 20,114
- Joined: Jun 11, 2009
-
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
Big J wrote:Optms wrote:So which GM is willing to trade assets for Williams knowing he already failed a physical? I bet none. He is damaged goods. Lakers have zero regrets. We're good.
No GM wants him because he sucks, not because he “failed” the Lakers joke of a physical.
Either way, Lakers are good.
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,170
- And1: 13,700
- Joined: Dec 04, 2013
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
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.
But not for his physical....
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
-
- 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
Homer38 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.
But not for his physical....
They failed the physical because they got cold feet.
Re: Jeff Schwartz via Shams: Los Angeles Lakers should not have failed Mark Williams on his physical
- 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
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 of Mark Williams' injured feet.