I don't think it's a question of one vs the other. No reason we shouldn't be able to keep both. It's no good judging things at a point in time (when he's injured and the team is going badly). His contribution over the last 5 years should be considered as well as his likely future contribution. If we don't keep him we'll just have to pay more for someone else who will then have to readjust to the tigers method of play, so in my mind it's a definite case that we keep him as long as he is willing to accept a reasonable sum