Circulating around the NBA is a trendy motto: Extensions, execs and agents say, are the new free agency.

A fresh, more punitive collective bargaining agreement threatens to squeeze players after their contracts expire. Especially in the summers of 2025 and 2026, when many of the squads that project to have cap space are not expected to be competitive, players are hoping to avoid the open market.

The solution? String along their current deals.

Today’s open market is a place with a Constanza-esque fear of shrinkage as the world just witnessed. No free agent who changed teams this past summer (other than Paul George, an obvious star) earned more than $66 million guaranteed. That honor went to Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, a do-it-all role player who uncovered more money than All-Stars like James Harden or DeMar DeRozan. Extending, too, is more player-friendly now than it was under the previous CBA, when veterans could begin extensions for up to 120 percent of their previous year’s salary. Now, that figure is 140 percent.

Extensions are arriving in bunches — Derrick White, Donovan Mitchell, Jalen Brunson, Jarrett Allen, Jonathan Isaac, Terance Mann, Stephen Curry … the list goes on.

Extending is not just about avoiding the league’s ever-scrunching open market. It’s about staying away from future free agencies too. Sign an extension now, and not only does that evade free agency; it also makes that player extension eligible once again a year earlier than if he had waited until free agency to re-up.

And thus, extensions will grow into extensions, which will sprout more extensions.

Players are opting for security. They’re recognizing that money nowadays is so large that even a contract worth peanuts inside the NBA’s ecosystem is still on par with Wall Street CEOs. And if extensions are the new free agency, that means plenty of teams enter training camp with contractual drama about to ensue.

Rookie-scale extensions, the ones when third-year up-and-comers re-sign for the long haul, have always been a theme of October. But given the conditions of the new NBA, veterans are now more likely to extend than ever.

Some on the list are stars: Luka Dončić, Rudy Gobert, Kevin Durant, Jimmy Butler and more.

But for now, let’s forget about the theater of it all. There are 53 veterans still eligible for extensions this season, some of which may indicate signs of how the league is changing financially.

Here are the five most interesting ones:

Contract: $22.8 million in 2024-25, $22.8 million player option in 2025-26

Flak does not even begin to explain what the Nuggets took after letting Caldwell-Pope, their 3-and-D aficionado, walk in free agency this summer.

The Nuggets deemed Caldwell-Pope, who would have driven the team’s payroll into the CBA’s daunting second apron – a threshold that limits a team’s ability to make most types of trades and free-agent signings — not worth bringing back, even though the organization had no avenue to replace him externally. But while the basketball world fixates on three young Denver wings — Christian Braun, Peyton Watson and Julian Strawther — who bear the burden of replacing Caldwell-Pope, we can turn our eyes to another more proven part of the lineup.

The Nuggets didn’t allow Caldwell-Pope to leave just because of this season’s payroll. It was also about future ones. Caldwell-Pope struggled in the playoffs and is two years older than the 29-year-old Gordon, who has been the ideal Swiss Army knife balling alongside Nikola Jokić and Jamal Murray since the Nuggets acquired him in 2021.

Therein lie the financial complications.

Gordon is now eligible for a four-year, $143 million extension. If the Nuggets offer it and he signs it, a deal that would kick in for 2025-26, Denver’s payroll from that season on shoots through the roof. In 2025-26, the Nuggets would dole out approximately $172 million for just four players: Jokić, Murray, Gordon and Michael Porter Jr. Add Caldwell-Pope, who signed with Orlando for $22 million a year, to the mix, and those five guys alone would have vaulted Denver well above the luxury tax. Surpassing the second apron, which is $17.5 million above the luxury tax, would become inevitable. Because of the money and the inflexibility that would come with it, the Nuggets broke up what’s been the NBA’s most-dominant starting five.

Denver and Gordon could get creative, delaying the salary blowup an extra season. Gordon could pick up his 2025-26 player option, then sign an extension that begins the following season, but that would require a sacrifice from Gordon, who wouldn’t just wait an extra year to receive his raise but also could not sign as long of an extension in that scenario.

The Nuggets already handed Murray a max extension this summer. Jokić and Porter are locked in. Can Denver ensure Gordon will stick around too?

Contract: $28.9 million in 2024-25, $30.9 million player option in 2025-26

Part of the reason the New York Knicks agreed to trade Randle for Karl-Anthony Towns was Randle’s contract situation. Extending Randle, who could sign for as much as $181 million over four years, would have undone the financial favor Brunson handed them this summer.

But with the Timberwolves, circumstances become even more complicated. That $181 million extension is now off the table — at least for the immediate future.

Because the Knicks are trading Randle, a deal that’s not yet official, he will become subject to the league’s extend-and-trade rules. He could still add years to his contract, but he won’t be able to tack on as many and they can’t be as lucrative as they would have been in New York.

The Knicks could have offered Randle a starting salary as large as 140 percent of $28.9 million, what he’s due to make in 2024-25, with 8 percent annual raises. But in the first six months after trading for Randle, the Wolves can offer a starting salary that’s only 120 percent of his 2024-25 number, can hand him only 5 percent annual raises and can’t offer the same length. Thus, the Wolves’ max extension offer to Randle would be $109 million over three years.

Six months after the trade, eligibility for that four-year, $181 million mammoth would return. If Minnesota disappoints, Randle could have lost his leverage by then. If the Wolves roar to the top of the Western Conference, maybe he’ll have put the pressure on them.

In the meantime, would three years and $109 million be enough to entice Randle, whose market may get squeezed next summer, when the Houston Rockets could be the only team seeking All-Star free agents? And would the Wolves, who have second-apron issues of their own, which is part of the reason they traded away Towns, commit long-term money to his replacement?

Contract: $13.4 million in 2024-25, $14.4 million in 2025-26

Gafford is a living embodiment of the new way of the NBA. Under the previous CBA there wouldn’t be any reason to monitor his situation. But life has changed.

The reality is that the Mavericks would be hasty to extend Gafford now. If 20-year-old Dereck Lively II, a potential All-Star who will fight Gafford for the starting spot this season, breaks out in Year 2, then Dallas can’t justify handing Gafford an eight-figure, long-term deal. A team can’t pay $15 million to a backup center, which Gafford could become upon Lively’s rise, when that center isn’t even playing 15 minutes, no matter how much he transforms the court as a lob threat and with elite rim protection.

The prudent play for Dallas would be to wait until next year, when Gafford is extension eligible again, see how Lively progresses and make a decision on the tandem of shot swatters then. But is that what’s best for Gafford, whose easiest mode to get paid more likely comes in an extension, not in hitting the open market?

Gafford may not demand the full 140 percent extension, which would start at $20.1 million, but at some point, there will be a player in a similar situation to Gafford and with two years remaining on his contract who believes he should land that maximum raise. And why shouldn’t that guy try to find a new home, a place that will extend him, two years before hitting free agency? After all, if Gafford were to wait until next summer, learn he wasn’t receiving an extension, then get traded with a year remaining on his deal, he’d fall under the same restriction Randle has now, eligible for only a 120-percent extension instead of the full 140.

The clock may not be ticking with Gafford, but at some point, someone in a similar situation to him — maybe a center, considering it can be difficult for big men to receive top dollar — will speed up a process that used to occur with free agency only a year out and now could happen even earlier.

Contract: $22.5 million in 2024-25

The best free agents will still get their money. MVP-level guys re-sign. George didn’t have to worry about a max contract when the LA Clippers moved on from him this summer. But the guys in the middle could start operating differently.

Enter Brogdon, whose best chance to get paid is by his own team. The problem is, there is a world in which the Wizards, who are stripping themselves for parts, decide it’s best after this season to let him walk. And if they do, Brogdon could be in trouble.

Tyus Jones, who left Washington this summer to sign a minimum contract with the Phoenix Suns, is a cautionary tale. So is Gary Trent Jr., who also received a minimum after the Toronto Raptors elected not to re-sign him.

On its face, it doesn’t appear to make sense for Brogdon to extend. The Wizards are in a rebuild and don’t need to lock in a 31-year-old point guard for the long term, unless it’s for a hyper-team-friendly deal. But why should Brogdon, who is only one year removed from a Sixth Man of the Year award, take such a discount?

He probably wouldn’t — unless he was afraid of his market drying up in 2025, when most of the teams with cap room will use their space to trade for unwanted contracts with sweeteners such as draft picks as rewards, not to sign veteran floor generals. Maybe Brogdon receives $20 million a year again next summer. Or maybe he’s the next Tyus Jones.

If Brogdon were conservative, would there be a compromise here?

The Wizards have already gotten creative with their extensions this summer, adding a couple of years, the second with a tiny guarantee, to center Richaun Holmes’ contract. The salary in 2024-25, $12.6 million, is no coincidence. That’s just below the $12.9 million midlevel exception, which can now be used as a trade exception, meaning teams can absorb players who make up to that amount without having to match salaries. At some point this season, Washington could send Holmes to another team without that team worrying about outgoing money. The Wizards gave out that extension to trade it.

So what if Brogdon, who has an injury history and could reasonably opt for security, approached Washington, willing to add two years to his deal at just below the midlevel? Would the Wizards do it, knowing they could trade him in a year or two? And would he be reckless or prudent for suggesting such a steep discount?

Contract: $25.3 million in 2024-25, $23.4 million in 2025-26

Jackson signing this autumn would be an upset. He has two seasons remaining and is eligible for an extension again next year. But Jackson’s contract is worth amplifying if only to discuss another possible consequence of the latest CBA.

Jackson signed his current deal in a different cap environment, under the previous CBA, when no one in the league knew all these aprons and restrictions would enter the picture. The Grizzlies, who weren’t overloaded with high payroll at the time, inked him with a clever contract structure. His salary decreases year over year, a big-time win for any front office.

The Grizzlies now employ a Defensive Player of the Year and 20-point scorer who will make only $23.4 million in 2025-26, a bargain among bargains. But people in the league have wondered if this new emphasis on extensions will change how often teams push decreasing contracts on players whom they consider part of their future, as the Grizzlies do with Jackson.

A hypothetical extension for Jackson could not start with a salary larger than $32.7 million. That’s a massive difference from what his max salary would be if he hit free agency that summer: $49 million. But had Jackson signed a contract that increased year over year, he’d be extending off a salary approximately $5.5 million higher, meaning he could make a hair above $40 million in Year 1 of an extension.

Maybe shrinking the gap that much could entice future players to accept less than the max. After all, $40 million is still $40 million in the real world.

(Top photo of Aaron Gordon: Ron Chenoy / USA Today)