Why has MLB such long time contracts and NHL not?

[alko]

I know, there were 13, 15 years contracts also in NHL, but the league decided to limit it. Isnt there any problem in MLB with that?

 

[Cas]

I know, there were 13, 15 years contracts also in NHL, but the league decided to limit it. Isnt there any problem in MLB with that?

The MLBPA (player's union) doesn't want limits on contract length (potentially more guaranteed money and more security - even if a player is released, he still gets every dollar), and neither do the owners (longer-term contracts allow you to spread money out over a longer period, reducing the net present value of the contract and also reducing the annual luxury tax burden).

 

[Canes]

I know, there were 13, 15 years contracts also in NHL, but the league decided to limit it. Isnt there any problem in MLB with that?

The MLB CBA is a lot more player friendly than the NHL CBA. There's really no contract cap of any kind. There is a luxury tax for teams that go over a certain payroll amount which does in effect limit things but it's still nothing like the NHL hard cap.

 

[John Price]

Yes it's odd how Harper and Betts got such long decade long deals meanwhile you don't see many hockey players get that. DiPietro and Ovechkin off the top of my head.

 

[joestevens29]

With cap things are a little different. If we still had the 15 year deals in the NHL a lot of teams would be pooched.

Yes it was working for a few guys, but there were more and more GM's trying to outsmart everyone and it started backfiring. Mike Richards contract would've still been active this year and he has been relevant in 5 or 6 years. Just under 6mil cap hit would be very damaging.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Baseball careers tend to be longer too.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Kovalchuk would still have 7 more years at 6 million per left had his contract not been terminated

Harper and Stanton contracts will not age well

 

[Cas]

Kovalchuk would still have 7 more years at 6 million per left had his contract not been terminated

Very few long-term contracts actually age well - the trick is to rack up excess value in the first half of the contract and to have the fortitude to release the player once they're no longer worth a roster spot. The extra years reduce the average annual value of the deal for luxury tax purposes and allow you to spread out the cost of acquiring the player over a longer term and reduce net present value.

If MLB contracts were limited to, say, eight years, Harper would be making $40 M a year instead of $27.5 M and the Phillies (or whoever) would be worse off. They're hoping Harper is a 4 WAR player through 2025-26 and remains worthy of a roster spot through the end of the deal - do that and the contract is worth it. If Harper is better early on, or ages more gracefully than that, then the Phillies got a bargain.

Stanton has honestly probably already paid for half of his contract - that MVP season alone was probably worth something like $60 M in fair-market value (free agency typically values WAR at about $8 M per, or at least it did).

 

[Voight]

Not having a salary cap helps. If you lock in a guy at 30 million/year for 10 years and he sucks the last 2 or 3 years, it won't effect your spending (well, depends on the team). Caps were smart to lock Ovy in when they did, even if it was a huge number at the time.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

Baseball careers tend to be longer too.

They where far longer in the steroid era the days of a average to above average player being super productive in their late 30/early 40s seems like it has passed.

 

[GKJ]

NHL was doing it because they were circumventing the salary cap. Not as big of a worry in baseball.

 

[Voight]

I think another factor is the way they are structured. A lot of the long term NHL contracts (before they changed the rules) were designed to decrease in value near the end, so the idea was players would just retire instead of playing just to finish their deal and make a lot less $$$$. If I'm not mistaken, MLB players on long term deals don't decrease as much so the player is very likely to ride out the whole thing. If you sign them for 10 years, they are going to play the full 10 years.

 

[Dr Salt]

The NHL put a cap on length. Baseball hasn't done that.

 

[bleedblue1223]

NHL was doing it because they were circumventing the salary cap. Not as big of a worry in baseball.

Right, if MLB had a salary cap, they would eventually put a limit on years to prevent cap circumvention. With just a luxury tax system, no one really cares.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Cba's. One allows decade-plus deals, the other has a limit.