Does anyone know of an example of "Future Considerations" actually making a difference in a trade?

[Kamiccolo]

Every year we see "Future Considerations" in some sort of deal. However, does anyone know if GM's ever actually try to phone in these "favors"? Or is it like the offer sheet where it's a thing but GM's don't use it and only use Future Considerations to dump contracts?

For example if Vegas had traded a guy for future considerations a year ago and then called on Stone, and they had a package that was nearly as good as another team, but maybe the difference is they are offering a A prospect + 2nd round pick, while another team is offering an A prospect + 2 2nds/

Can Vegas GM go "Yeah but you owe us a favor" and to "return" it win the trade even though they are giving slightly lesser value? Or is this something that never happens and only is really considered for depth pieces?

 

[Nick0930]

Fun fact: John McDonald was traded from the Blue Jays to the Tigers for future considerations. That future consideration was John McDonald.

 

[SotasicA]

"Yeah but you owe us a favor" and to "return" it win the trade

Would be funny if a team stockpiled on future considerations and then used them all at once to acquire a star player in a trade that seems to be for nothing.

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

Fun fact: John McDonald was traded from the Blue Jays to the Tigers for future considerations. That future consideration was John McDonald.

Detroit has some really weird moments in sports

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

Would be funny if a team stockpiled on future considerations and then used them all at once to acquire a star player in a trade that seems to be for nothing.

Come calling to settle up with a hundred napkins with “future considerations” written on them.

 

[brachyrynchos]

Jeff Beukeboom to the Rangers for David Shaw was the future considerations part of the Messier for Nicholls, Rice, and Debrusk. In NY, Beukeboom was paired with Leetch and together made a great duo for many year, a steal for the Rangers.

 

[Oddbob]

Would be funny if a team stockpiled on future considerations and then used them all at once to acquire a star player in a trade that seems to be for nothing.

It definitely doesn't work this way! When it is for future considerations in these low end trades, if it gets used at all, it would be for the most minimal of pieces coming back. Like a similar player or draft pick.

 

[SotasicA]

It definitely doesn't work this way! When it is for future considerations in these low end trades, if it gets used at all, it would be for the most minimal of pieces coming back. Like a similar player or draft pick.

I expect EA Sports to include future considerations the way I proposed.

Trade all your scrubs, minor leaguers and low round draft picks for future considerations. Then trade about two dozen future considerations for one Connor McDavid.

 

[Kamiccolo]

Jeff Beukeboom to the Rangers for David Shaw was the future considerations part of the Messier for Nicholls, Rice, and Debrusk. In NY, Beukeboom was paired with Leetch and together made a great duo for many year, a steal for the Rangers.

You have to go that far back? Wow. Crazy you see it as a return for guys so often but it really means nothing.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Wasn't it labelled "future considerations", when the Devils signed Stevens from the blues I believe it was ?

 

[SotasicA]

Wasn't it labelled "future considerations", when the Devils signed Stevens from the blues I believe it was ?

Nah, that was the Blues signing Shananan as an RFA.

An arbitrator awarded Scott Stevens as compensation to the Devils.

 

[Seanaconda]

Every year we see "Future Considerations" in some sort of deal. However, does anyone know if GM's ever actually try to phone in these "favors"? Or is it like the offer sheet where it's a thing but GM's don't use it and only use Future Considerations to dump contracts?

For example if Vegas had traded a guy for future considerations a year ago and then called on Stone, and they had a package that was nearly as good as another team, but maybe the difference is they are offering a A prospect + 2nd round pick, while another team is offering an A prospect + 2 2nds/

Can Vegas GM go "Yeah but you owe us a favor" and to "return" it win the trade even though they are giving slightly lesser value? Or is this something that never happens and only is really considered for depth pieces?

It’s just used to clear open roster spots . Which may be used in future considerations I guess ?

I guess it helps make another gm like you cuz that does matter.
So the bruins trading Hamilton to the flames instead of the oilers for a worse package is the closest thing I can think of how being liked or disliked matters.

But I think that was more of a screw you chia consideration.


Oh and that weird trade this year were both guys were traded for future considerations but one was on an ahl contract instead of just making a straight up trade

 

[Seanaconda]

Nah, that was the Blues signing Shananan as an RFA.

An arbitrator awarded Scott Stevens as compensation to the Devils.

That’s what offer sheet compensation was back then tho

 

[SotasicA]

Future Considerations would be a cool name for a hockey player. And the confusion he would create would be worth all the bullying received in school.

 

[mouser]

Every year we see "Future Considerations" in some sort of deal. However, does anyone know if GM's ever actually try to phone in these "favors"? Or is it like the offer sheet where it's a thing but GM's don't use it and only use Future Considerations to dump contracts?

For example if Vegas had traded a guy for future considerations a year ago and then called on Stone, and they had a package that was nearly as good as another team, but maybe the difference is they are offering a A prospect + 2nd round pick, while another team is offering an A prospect + 2 2nds/

Can Vegas GM go "Yeah but you owe us a favor" and to "return" it win the trade even though they are giving slightly lesser value? Or is this something that never happens and only is really considered for depth pieces?

Future Considerations is basically, "Thanks, we owe you a favor". Oh, and in most situations that favor is worth less then the value of a 7th round pick--otherwise the player would have been traded for a pick instead of the Future Considerations.

 

[brachyrynchos]

Detroit acquired Larry Murphy from Toronto for future considerations. Murphy helped the Wings win the Cup that year ('97) and the following. I can't seem to find just what the considerations were for the Leafs.

 

[Prince Pasta]

how does one collect such considerations?

 

[ClasslessGuy]

In CHL there's big trades made with future considerations

 

[Khrox]

At the NHL level I always assumed future considerations to be small favours. and later if you and another team are trying to trade for the same guy, and offer similar packages, it'll likely go to you instead.

 

[BMOK33]

The Nationals got Trea Turner as a future considered player from San Diego. To this day I don’t know what San Diego was thinking even though Turner looked fairly meh for most of 2018

 

[RoyalDoubleMcCheesie]

That is basically future considerations.

 

[BattleBorn]

Future Considerations were huge in the expansion draft, though they were more of a filler for an outside-of-the-draft trade that occurred and was pretty much immediately announced.

 

[alko]

I think, here should the NHL step in and show exactly, how the trades look now. In the Central Register it is for sure.

 

[Paper]

Robyn Regehr was future considerations in the Fleury trade.

In 1998 the Avalanche had 4 first round picks, they selected Tanguay (12), Skoula (17), Regehr (19) and Parker (20). When the Fleury trade was made in February, 1998, the Flames received future considerations in the form of a list of prospects to chose from (which was assumed or perhaps confirmed to have included the latter three first round picks from 1998). At the end of March 1998 they decided on Regehr.

Future considerations can include anything from really nothing to something substantial, it's negotiated at the time of the trade not all "future considerations" are equal...

 

[rojac]

The Nationals got Trea Turner as a future considered player from San Diego. To this day I don’t know what San Diego was thinking even though Turner looked fairly meh for most of 2018

In baseball, you’re not allowed to trade a player within six months (I think) of drafting them. So, the deal was made with future considerations, but it was always going to be Turner — as soon as he could legitimately be moved.