PistonPowered: Pistons should try to delay Drummond deal

Dan Feldman writes for the Detroit Pistons blog PistonPowered. His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Detroit Free Press nor its writers. PistonPowered writers will contribute a column every Friday at freep.com/pistons . Contact Dan anytime at pistonpowered@gmail.com or on Twitter @danfeldmannba.

Andre Drummond is eligible for a contract extension this off-season, and Pistons owner Tom Gores already has called him "a maximum guy." Drummond is the Pistons' franchise player, and it's imperative that they secure him long-term. This summer is absolutely crucial for handling him, which means that the Pistons should have one priority:

Not extending Drummond.

Yep, you read that right. The Pistons shouldn't extend Drummond.

Obviously, the Pistons unilaterally can deny Drummond an extension, and that might work just fine. But it'd be preferable if Drummond got on board with that plan.

This isn't about being cheap nor slighting Drummond, who absolutely is deserving of a max contract. It's about manipulating salary cap rules.

Drummond is under contract for next season, the final year of the rookie-scale deal he signed after being drafted. His 2015-16 salary is locked in at $3,272,091.

The key issue is what happens after that.

If Drummond signs a max extension this summer, he'll make about $21 million in 2016-17.

If Drummond lets his current contract expire and then signs a max deal in the summer of 2016, he'll make about $21 million in 2016-17.

So, what's the difference?

His cap number in July 2016.

By signing a contract extension now, Drummond's salary would be known when 2016 free agency begins. So he'd count against the cap at his 2016-17 salary, which projects to be about $21 million.

But if Drummond doesn't sign an extension, he'd become a restricted free agent in 2016. Free agents count against the cap at a number determined by their previous salary. In this case, it would be $8,180,228.

That's a difference of nearly $13 million, which could be used to upgrade Drummond's supporting cast.

The Pistons and Drummond could agree to a new deal at the start of 2016 free agency and just wait to officially sign it. That would allow the Pistons to pursue other players while Drummond continues to count just $8,180,228 against the cap. Then, once the Pistons have used their cap space, they could exceed the cap to re-sign Drummond because they hold his Bird Rights.

Essentially, Drummond gets the same contract either way. But if he signs it as a new deal in 2016, as opposed to as an extension this summer, the Pistons get about an extra $13 million to spend elsewhere.

So why wouldn't Drummond go for that?

Because nothing is binding. There's essentially no risk of the Pistons backing out of a deal come summer 2016, but we have to get there first. What if Drummond gets hurt next season? What if his production regresses? The Pistons would be under no obligation to offer him anything.

An extension signed now protects him -- and does so while his value is high.

If Drummond doesn't sign an extension, he'd become a restricted free agent in 2016, which would give the Pistons the right to match any offer. So Drummond couldn't just leave if he's bitter about not getting an extension.

He could, however, sign the qualifying offer and become an unrestricted free agent in 2017. That's the big risk the Pistons would take if they forgo an extension and let Drummond hit free agency.

And of course, fresh in their minds, that backfired with Greg Monroe, who accepted the qualifying offer after not getting an extension and will become an unrestricted free agent this summer.

But that situation was hardly identical to the one Drummond would face.

Monroe turned down about $14 million per year, as reported by the Free Press, to take a one-year, $5,479,934 contract.

Drummond would be turning down about $24 million per year to take a one-year, $4,433,683 contract.

That's the advantage of the new national-TV contracts raising the maximum salary by the time Drummond would hit free agency. Monroe was stuck in the old marketplace (though the Pistons reportedly didn't offer him the max, anyway). Qualifying offers are set by the collective bargaining agreement and not directly tied to league revenue.

Another reason to get Drummond to approve the lack of an extension: He could dislike it and make things miserable for the Pistons. Pouting, lack of effort, trade demand -- all could be put on the table if this isn't handled carefully.

That's why I applaud Gores for getting the process headed in the right direction by unequivocally and publicly calling Drummond a max player.

The Pistons should pledge now to give Drummond that max contract in 2016 with some minimum benchmarks -- like Drummond at least maintaining his current level -- and then they should follow through. He'd have to take a leap of faith, but hopefully, his relationship with Gores would persuade him to do so.

He'd get the same contract -- projected to be worth up to approximately $121 million over five years -- either way. To him, as long as he believes that the Pistons would honor their word, it's just a matter of when he puts pen to paper.

To the Pistons, though, the differences are immense. An extra $13 million, even as player salaries skyrocket, could land a quality starter.

And that, though the biggest, is not the only benefit. NBA teams are limited in the number of designated players they can have at once. A designated player is someone who signs a five-year extension coming off of his rookie-scale contract.

A team can have only one player it designated plus one other player designated by another team on its roster at a time. If the Pistons make Drummond their designated player, they couldn't designate anyone else and could acquire only one other designated player from another team as long as Drummond remains on his extension. The odds of that being a problem are low, but why put yourself at a disadvantage?

Five-year contracts signed as free agents, on the other hand, do not make someone a designated player. He becomes a designated player only if the deal is reached through an extension.

The deeper you dig, the more reasons there are not to extend Drummond.

This doesn't mean that the Pistons should avoid an extension in all circumstances, though.

They could offer Drummond a smaller extension, well short of his projected $121-million max. I doubt it, but maybe he'd prefer that deal and the stability it presents. With lower payments to him across the length of the deal, the Pistons still could get their savings, and Drummond would guarantee now that he becomes very rich (just not as rich as he could become).

And if Drummond balks at the idea of waiting to sign until 2016, the Pistons must assess any threats he makes to gain leverage. Would he accept the qualifying offer? Would he demand a trade? Would he lose his loyalty to the franchise?

The Pistons must be ready to call his bluff -- but also to just give him an extension now if they determine that he's not bluffing. That extra $13 million would be nice, but I don't think it's worth turning your relationship with your best player toxic.

There's a lot to sort through before the extension deadline of Oct. 31. In the right circumstances, extending Drummond might be the best option.

But for now, the Pistons' goal should be attempting to avoid those circumstances, to sell Drummond on forgoing an extension. That's much trickier than presenting a max extension and getting out of the way before Drummond stampedes to sign it, but it's well worth the effort.