I'd give him 7 with an option for an 8th no questions asked.

Having already cast my vote, I would like to point out a certain ambiguity in the way the question is phrased.

This question does NOT ask would we, ourselves, chose to give David an eight-year contract if he insisted on it--or even would we want the Mets to do that. It asks, instead, would we FAULT the Mets for choosing not to do it.

To me, the answer to that question is a no brainer--there is certainly enough to worry about that it would perfectly understandable if the Mets declined to offer a contract of that length--to anyone of David's age. If the question were what would I, personally, do if the choice were up to me--then I would have to think a lot harder about it.

I really meant more... would it makes sense in your eyes for the Mets to give a deal like that. Not really if YOU were in charge because all due respect that's likely not happening any time soon.

I think we could go more years if he is willing to take less late in the deal, to help us spread out the money. Bobby Bo says hi.

I thought the player's union didn't allow front loaded deals?

i vote yes...but why would Wilpon go nuts over someone who he thinks is just a "very good player. Not a superstar"

For that money I'd rather sign a superstar then, Fred.

The solution is simpler...a very lucrative 5 to 6 year deal that takes him to the year-by-year contract zone. I cannot imagine he'd balk at a contract taking him to age 36, then allows the Mets to evaluate year by year.

Replace the option year, with 6 at $115m or so.

It really depends on the money. I would have no problem with 8 as long as its not Carl Crawford type money or something.