The Detroit Lions are going to have to make a lot of tough roster decisions in the next couple years, and there's no bigger issue than the case of Ndamukong Suh.

Detroit, as you probably already know, has committed more to Suh, Matthew Stafford and Calvin Johnson than any team has committed to any three players in the NFL. In other words, it has attempted to win with the opposite approach of the league's biggest winner.

The Detroit Lions face the difficult problem of whether or not to extend Ndamukong Suh, who could become the league's highest-paid defensive tackle with his new deal.

The Seattle Seahawks constructed a deep and talented roster through draft-day steals, selecting a franchise quarterback in the third round, the game's best cornerback in the fifth round and the Super Bowl MVP in the seventh round.

That means they have the incredible luxury of paying their core bottom dollar, then supplementing that nucleus with free agents. And that's a hell of way to build a team, if you can manage it.

Detroit has not had that luxury. It has talent, too, but procured it from the top of the draft and from an era when the NFL did not suppress rookie contracts. And that means it has paid an exorbitant price.

The Lions got their franchise quarterback (Stafford), but did it at No. 1 overall in 2009. They got a franchise receiver (Johnson), but did it at No. 2 overall in 2007.

They've already guaranteed that pair nearly $180 million.

And then there's Suh, who is entering the final certain year of a rookie contract that has paid him $51.79 million in his first four seasons -- more than any player has ever made in his first four years in the league.

He's under contract for 2015 as well, but it is a voidable year. That means Detroit has an incredible incentive to extend Suh this offseason, both to deflate his 2014 cap number (set at $22.4 million) and to ensure the face of the defense remains with the club into 2015 and beyond.

But it will cost at least five years and $55 million (Geno Atkins' deal) to keep Suh, and some question whether Detroit should shell out that kind of cash for a defensive tackle. There are even more who question whether the Lions should continue to allocate so much money to only three players.

All valid concerns.

But that doesn't mean the Lions can just walk away from Suh.

Their window for a Super Bowl run will remain open as long as Calvin Johnson can do Calvin Johnson things. If his knees are any indication, that window won't be cracked for more than a couple years.

The time to win is now, and trading a star, or letting him walk, does not help you do that.

What are you going to do, trade Suh for draft picks?

It doesn't make any sense to trade one of the greatest players at his position for a few draft picks that might not work out, and probably wouldn't be as good even if they did.

Just ask the Florida Marlins about that.

They got a couple of stud prospects in starting pitcher Andrew Miller and outfielder Cameron Maybin in a 2007 trade with the Detroit Tigers. And all they had to do was give up some guy named Miguel Cabrera (and Dontrelle Willis).

Miller went 10-20 in three years with the Marlins, while Maybin hit .257 with 12 homers, 43 RBIs, 14 stolen bases and and 151 strikeouts. Cabrera has become one of the greatest right-handed hitters in baseball history.

It rarely makes sense to trade the proven for the unproven, and Suh's case is no different. You might pay him more than you'd like to invest at defensive tackle, but you also have one of the game's greats anchoring your defense.

You can't move on from him, just so you can have more cash to spend on players who are not as good.

Maybe the Lions can get a team to offer up some established NFL talent that would plug enough other holes to make a deal worth it. But it's hard to imagine that kind of deal coming together in today's NFL.

And maybe Suh decides he doesn't want to be here at all, and walks in free agency.

But for now, the Lions remain committed to trying to extend Suh this offseason. And that is the appropriate recourse, costly as it may be.