Blue Jays Debate: A Brett Cecil Extension

1 of 7

Mandatory Credit: Gregory J. Fisher-USA TODAY Sports

The Blue Jays have players who are approaching their walk year and could become candidates for extensions as a result. We’ll present both sides of the argument on whether or not they should be extended.

Over the next few weeks, Jim Scott and I will be debating extensions for some of the Toronto Blue Jays players and pitchers. This will be done in an amicable way with the intent to bring all pros and cons forward and help present an viable argument for both sides of the decision. Thereafter, we’ll let you all decide which side you support and why based on what you know and read.

For the purpose of this debate, Jim will be examining the “Against Extension” side, while I’ll be explaining the “Pro Extension” side.

First, Jim and I need some rules of engagement, so here they are.

More from Jays Journal

Rules of Engagement

  1. The parts of each argument will include: Presenting the player and his accomplishments, a Statistical case, a Financial case, the best and worst case scenario, the intangibles, and the closing arguments;
  2. The case must be made in its broadest form using what we know to be true today;
  3. Outlandish claims are welcome as they will be torn apart in the comments section;
  4. The Financial case will be built using Cot’s Baseball Contracts and MLBTR projections;
  5. Various news stories may be used to build a case for the Intangibles;
  6. Best and Worst case scenarios can concentrate on one or many areas;
  7. No name calling will be tolerated, but tasteful jabs are welcome; and
  8. Future decisions made by the team will be measured against what was presented here, giving us the chance to see if either side was on the mark, OR to point out that both sides were way out to lunch!

With the rules in mind, sharpened minds and opinions, here we go!

Next: The Brett Cecil Extension: Presenting Brett Cecil