The much-maligned Bulls forward Patrick Williams, unfortunately, will go down in franchise history as the shining emblem of Arturas Karnisovas’ futility in his tenure as Chicago Bulls executive vice president of basketball operations.
Not one, but two fatal front office flaws involving Williams cemented Karnisovas’ Bulls legacy in bombshell reporting by ESPN’s Jamal Collier.
Drafting a largely unproven NCAA men's basketball prospect in Williams with the fourth overall pick in the 2020 draft was a setup punch to Karnisovas’ executive body of work.
Extending the one-and-done sixth man from Florida State on a five-year $90 million fully guaranteed contract, with a player option, was the knockout blow to Karnisovas ever being taken seriously as the head of Bulls basketball operations.
Given the exit of Karnisovas and the slow unraveling of Williams’ radioactive NBA contract, it begs the question of whether Karnisovas’ successor, Bryson Graham, should waive and stretch Patrick Williams in the near future?
The nuances of the NBA waive and stretch provision
In simple terms, the NBA waive and stretch provision in its typical application allows an NBA franchise to waive a player and “stretch” paying the player their remaining guaranteed salary over a longer period of time. In most cases, the last two years of a contract are stretched into a payment period of five years.
The most recent and notable example of an NBA franchise using the waive and stretch provision is the Milwaukee Bucks' 2025 NBA offseason decision to waive and stretch the two remaining years of guard Damian Lillard’s $113 million salary to sign center Myles Turner in free agency.
Evaluating a stretch decision for Patrick Williams
Applying conventional wisdom to the premise of waiving and stretching Patrick Williams, one should assume a 2027 NBA offseason decision, indexed on waiving and stretching the final two years of Williams' contract, valued at $36 million guaranteed and, of course, $18 million against the Bulls’ salary cap in each of those final two years.
One should also assume in this scenario that Williams never again plays to a level at which he would create a viable trade market for his services. Otherwise, the Bulls should simply salary-dump trade Williams.
In this context, why might the Bulls consider waiving and stretching Williams? As a theoretical parameter to explore, the Bulls might consider the stretch provision for Williams’ contract if, for some reason, the Bulls found themselves in a scenario in which they needed to avoid apron penalties or the luxury tax.
However, most Bulls fans know the Bulls’ ownership group will gladly take cash considerations and luxury tax payment subsidies before they spend their own money on the roster cost of building an NBA title contender.
More practically, the use case for actually waiving and stretching Williams may come down to an opportunity to put Williams’ roster spot to better use. The Bulls may have a viable path to developing a two-way contract player into a main roster rotational player in Jaylin Sellers.
If the Bulls front office is committed to making undrafted free agent signings a consistent pipeline for roster talent, then perhaps replacing Williams’ $18 million per year with a veteran minimum contract plus a stretched $7.2 million per year is a better use of Williams’ roster spot over the long term.
Add us as a preferred source on Google