I feel like there's a good argument for both. On the one hand you could say that it's a lot to throw him in there against a division rival with a tough lineup and the adrenaline spike making him throw a little too hard/wild right off the bat.
On the other hand you could say who knows how long he'll last this year and shoot your shot while he's healthy.
Why do you have to extend him? Verlander was signed for a few years when they got him. The extension isn’t part of the deal.
It was a separate outcome and that’s a big difference.
Im against making poor moves that are likely to fail.