Speculation: Future Considerations wiggle room

[Edgelord]

Are you allowed to trade a prospect for future considerations where the value of the return asset is determined say 2 yrs after trade?
So lets say the Leafs can't get guys like Sosh, Hyman, Lepsic, Kap, Brown enough NHL time and the call teams who have weak prospect/youth and say we will give you 1 or more of these guys for free now to use but in 2 yrs you either pay what we agree he is worth at that time or we take the player back?
Short and long is if a team doesn't have enough spots to develop their own youth can they allow other teams to "use" said player for 2 years then the team has the option to buy or return player.

Click to read more...

 

[darkwingduck]

You really want to trust another team to develop your players? Cost money to develop, travel, equipment, salary, coaches.

Also, even if they like the prospect, they'd just limit ice time enough to lower the value.

 

[SLAPSHOT723]

I have no idea why nobody has grasped this, but "future considerations" means for free. Peter Chiarelli admitted this when he traded Marco Sturm to the Kings in 2010-11, and not once have we heard "this is what X team got for that future considerations trade two years ago".

Also, in your scenario, you could always lend them to another AHL team, but it's better to have your players develop together.

 

[Maukkis]

It would cause problems, since "agreeing on the player's value at the time" would not work. The original team would just ask for a sky high amount if the player had developed well, and stay there: there's no need to budge. Either the new team pays that stupid amount or they lose the player. There's no winning for the team who did the developing. On the other hand, because the new team knows that, they can just bench the player and do nothing to develop him correctly, because they have no reason to put in effort to help the original team.

However, one way to THEORETICALLY make that work could be an arbitration at the end of the loan period. The arbitrator would decide a price, which the new could choose to pay or walk away, in which case the player returns to his original team. In that case, I feel like a draft pick compensation for the team who developed the player would be needed. It might work, but there are still enough flaws for it to never be allowed.

 

[Edgelord]

It would cause problems, since "agreeing on the player's value at the time" would not work. The original team would just ask for a sky high amount if the player had developed well, and stay there: there's no need to budge. Either the new team pays that stupid amount or they lose the player. There's no winning for the team who did the developing. On the other hand, because the new team knows that, they can just bench the player and do nothing to develop him correctly, because they have no reason to put in effort to help the original team.

However, one way to THEORETICALLY make that work could be an arbitration at the end of the loan period. The arbitrator would decide a price, which the new could choose to pay or walk away, in which case the player returns to his original team. In that case, I feel like a draft pick compensation for the team who developed the player would be needed. It might work, but there are still enough flaws for it to never be allowed.

Thats a great idea I can see East-West co operation but no way will 2 teams from the same conference work together.
An other thing is certain teams are better at developing certain positions so they could use that to acquire extra picks. Say L.A and goalies, if they take a goalie prospect and develop him then they get a pick. Level of pick is determined by how good he turns out.

 

[Maukkis]

Thats a great idea I can see East-West co operation but no way will 2 teams from the same conference work together.
An other thing is certain teams are better at developing certain positions so they could use that to acquire extra picks. Say L.A and goalies, if they take a goalie prospect and develop him then they get a pick. Level of pick is determined by how good he turns out.

Thanks. I'll give you an example about what I meant with that.


Philadelphia decides to loan defenseman Robert Hagg to San Jose for two years. The two teams agree on a compensation of a third round pick in 2019. (the year after the loan ends)

After the two years have passed, the arbitration hearing takes place. Hagg has developed into a steady, borderline top-4 defenseman. The arbitrator names the price: a good looking forward prospect Kevin Labanc and a fourth round pick in 2019.

San Jose has two options: trade Labanc and the pick to keep Hagg, or give Hagg back to Philadelphia for the third round pick, which was accepted as the compensation two years ago.

It would need a lot of tinkering and fine-tuning though. Maybe a couple of different prices, from which "Philadelphia" could choose one or two which they wouldn't want, and then "San Jose" would have to choose between the rest. But yeah, that's what I was thinking.

 

[Edgelord]

Thanks. I'll give you an example about what I meant with that.


Philadelphia decides to loan defenseman Robert Hagg to San Jose for two years. The two teams agree on a compensation of a third round pick in 2019. (the year after the loan ends)

After the two years have passed, the arbitration hearing takes place. Hagg has developed into a steady, borderline top-4 defenseman. The arbitrator names the price: a good looking forward prospect Kevin Labanc and a fourth round pick in 2019.

San Jose has two options: trade Labanc and the pick to keep Hagg, or give Hagg back to Philadelphia for the third round pick, which was accepted as the compensation two years ago.

It would need a lot of tinkering and fine-tuning though. Maybe a couple of different prices, from which "Philadelphia" could choose one or two which they wouldn't want, and then "San Jose" would have to choose between the rest. But yeah, that's what I was thinking.

I like the idea and it would add a whole other dynamic to trades.
Now I wonder if some teams would complain that the rich teams are using the wealth to develop talent and acquire picks out side of the cap system.

 

[SEALBound]

I have no idea why nobody has grasped this, but "future considerations" means for free. Peter Chiarelli admitted this when he traded Marco Sturm to the Kings in 2010-11, and not once have we heard "this is what X team got for that future considerations trade two years ago".

Also, in your scenario, you could always lend them to another AHL team, but it's better to have your players develop together.

This. At best it's a gentleman's agreement that "Hey, I helped you out here, let's be friendly to each other in future deals. Maybe take a 3rd instead of the 2nd". Nothing in writing, more of a handshake - eye wink.

I use "future considerations" a lot in the game Settlers. When I trade I will often give more value to someone early who has advantageous resources later. I may also not use the thief thing on them. They can balk, sure...but then there will be pay back.

 

[Theridion]

This. At best it's a gentleman's agreement that "Hey, I helped you out here, let's be friendly to each other in future deals. Maybe take a 3rd instead of the 2nd". Nothing in writing, more of a handshake - eye wink.

I use "future considerations" a lot in the game Settlers. When I trade I will often give more value to someone early who has advantageous resources later. I may also not use the thief thing on them. They can balk, sure...but then there will be pay back.

That's the worst. Trades are not allowed to have future threats or promises in Settlers.

Anyone I know who played Settlers, sat down and threatened to use or not use a thief or to offer something up later or ask for something later would be shunned by everyone at the table and finish in last place.

Nothing ruins a boardgame like excessive crosstalk. There is already mechanics for giving, receiving, hurting your opponents, blocking roads, ganging up on the leader... it doesn't need vague threats and promises.

 

[Archangel]

Are you allowed to trade a prospect for future considerations where the value of the return asset is determined say 2 yrs after trade?
So lets say the Leafs can't get guys like Sosh, Hyman, Lepsic, Kap, Brown enough NHL time and the call teams who have weak prospect/youth and say we will give you 1 or more of these guys for free now to use but in 2 yrs you either pay what we agree he is worth at that time or we take the player back?
Short and long is if a team doesn't have enough spots to develop their own youth can they allow other teams to "use" said player for 2 years then the team has the option to buy or return player.

FC must be declared and described

example

IF Team A trade prospect A to team B--the two teams needs to tell the NHL what the FC is. They can say if prospect A does not score 50 goals over two yeas--Team A only gets a 6th rounder--however if he scores 50 goals they get a 1st rounder. Players get traded all the time with the FC being based upon games played or pts or both. But it is laid out in the original trade

 

[MikeyMike01]

I have no idea why nobody has grasped this, but "future considerations" means for free. Peter Chiarelli admitted this when he traded Marco Sturm to the Kings in 2010-11, and not once have we heard "this is what X team got for that future considerations trade two years ago".

Also, in your scenario, you could always lend them to another AHL team, but it's better to have your players develop together.

Yes, future considerations means "the other team will have a better opinion of you in the future"

 

[SLAPSHOT723]

FC must be declared and described

example

IF Team A trade prospect A to team B--the two teams needs to tell the NHL what the FC is. They can say if prospect A does not score 50 goals over two yeas--Team A only gets a 6th rounder--however if he scores 50 goals they get a 1st rounder. Players get traded all the time with the FC being based upon games played or pts or both. But it is laid out in the original trade

That's conditional draft pick trades, not future considerations. Although very rarely do we see your scenario actually played out.

Yes, future considerations means "the other team will have a better opinion of you in the future"

Essentially.

 

[mouser]

Are you allowed to trade a prospect for future considerations where the value of the return asset is determined say 2 yrs after trade?
So lets say the Leafs can't get guys like Sosh, Hyman, Lepsic, Kap, Brown enough NHL time and the call teams who have weak prospect/youth and say we will give you 1 or more of these guys for free now to use but in 2 yrs you either pay what we agree he is worth at that time or we take the player back?
Short and long is if a team doesn't have enough spots to develop their own youth can they allow other teams to "use" said player for 2 years then the team has the option to buy or return player.

Nope. Teams cannot trade a player with conditional terms placed on future movement of the player. The only exception to this is conditionals if the receiving team re-signs the player to an extension or new contract.

For example, it would not be allowed for Team A to trade a player to Team B with a conditional term that Team B owes Team A a conditional draft pick if they later trade the player to Team C.

While the rules the NHL employs are not documented anywhere to my knowledge, the spirit of it seems to be they don't want players to have conditions attached to their movement that might cause teams to treat them differently then a player without those conditions. I.e. Putting a player in an unequal situation relative to their fellow players just because they were traded.

 

[vHAB]

This. At best it's a gentleman's agreement that "Hey, I helped you out here, let's be friendly to each other in future deals. Maybe take a 3rd instead of the 2nd". Nothing in writing, more of a handshake - eye wink.

This makes me think we could find some actual examples of future considerations coming into play if we looked hard enough. Obviously we as fans may not always be exactly in tune with the market value of every player(and team surpluses/needs can affect value as well), but if a link exists between two trades made by the same GMs within a reasonable period of time, where the first involves future considerations and the second a perceived overpayment(even if only slight), we could at least argue the future considerations played a role.

My guess is that if it ever does come into play, it would be in the form of an added late pick or moving up/down a round like the poster I quoted suggested. Even other small favors like taking a busted prospect to clear a contract could be a possibility.

Some cool ideas in here but it would be too much of a headache for the GMs to use even if it were allowed IMO.

 

[1989]

Overcomplicated. Might as well do a loan deal, similar to European football system.

 

[tony d]

Doubt this happens. What? Loan your prospects to other teams? Really doubt that happens.

 

[SEALBound]

That's the worst. Trades are not allowed to have future threats or promises in Settlers.

Anyone I know who played Settlers, sat down and threatened to use or not use a thief or to offer something up later or ask for something later would be shunned by everyone at the table and finish in last place.

Nothing ruins a boardgame like excessive crosstalk. There is already mechanics for giving, receiving, hurting your opponents, blocking roads, ganging up on the leader... it doesn't need vague threats and promises.

You don't win very often do you?

The haggling is the best part of that game.

This makes me think we could find some actual examples of future considerations coming into play if we looked hard enough. Obviously we as fans may not always be exactly in tune with the market value of every player(and team surpluses/needs can affect value as well), but if a link exists between two trades made by the same GMs within a reasonable period of time, where the first involves future considerations and the second a perceived overpayment(even if only slight), we could at least argue the future considerations played a role.

My guess is that if it ever does come into play, it would be in the form of an added late pick or moving up/down a round like the poster I quoted suggested. Even other small favors like taking a busted prospect to clear a contract could be a possibility.

Some cool ideas in here but it would be too much of a headache for the GMs to use even if it were allowed IMO.

I think a lot of it has to do with how the "free" players turns out. If you give away a Martin St. Louis who you're about to a buy out (as Calgary did) but you do a "Hey, Tampa, MSL for "future considerations? Saves us money...". And MSL blows up like he did...I think Calgary would have decent grounds to come back and expect a little more in a trade or maybe a little bit better prospect than the one you're offering. Now, of course, you can balk on it and ruin your relationship...but with only 30 GMs...it's too small of a world.

 

[tmg]

I have no idea why nobody has grasped this, but "future considerations" means for free. Peter Chiarelli admitted this when he traded Marco Sturm to the Kings in 2010-11, and not once have we heard "this is what X team got for that future considerations trade two years ago".

Wasn't the Bernier-to-Anaheim deal effectively the future consideration realization of the Andersen-to-Toronto deal? They effectively delayed the return half of the deal to get Toronto to pay a July 1 bonus. I will gladly pay you Tuesday for an Andersen today.

 

[Jorah Marshmont]

Yes, future considerations means "the other team will have a better opinion of you in the future"

"What do you want for Marco Sturm?"
"Why don't you just tell us what the best restaurant near the rink is?"

 

[SLAPSHOT723]

Wasn't the Bernier-to-Anaheim deal effectively the future consideration realization of the Andersen-to-Toronto deal? They effectively delayed the return half of the deal to get Toronto to pay a July 1 bonus. I will gladly pay you Tuesday for an Andersen today.

That's not future considerations, that's just two trades. If the trade for Andersen was:


Frederik Andersen

2
PIT 1st 2016
Conditional 2nd 2017
Future Considerations

Then you'd be right. But when a trade is made for "future considerations" it means nothing.

The Islanders did something similar. They traded a conditional 2nd (really nothing) to Boston for Tim Thomas, and later we got Boychuk at less than market value as a "we're even" move. Same when we retained half the salaries on Peter Regin and PM Bouchard when they were traded to Chicago. That surely helped us get Nick Leddy at less than market value as well, even with the cap constraints each team had.

 

[Mubiki]

You really want to trust another team to develop your players? Cost money to develop, travel, equipment, salary, coaches.

Also, even if they like the prospect, they'd just limit ice time enough to lower the value.

It could work at the AHL level. This concept works splendidly in soccer.

 

[Siludin]

Having worked in sales for many years, "future considerations" is essentially a gift that lets you develop a relationship with a rival hockey club/"company" where one might not have existed before. This may allow you to get the first-look at a future FA acquisition and the like. It's not binding, but you'd be surprised at how much personal relationships affect business dealings.

For example, when Kevin Lowe offersheeted Dustin Penner, Burke gave Kevin Lowe the opposite of "future considerations" in return.

 

[VainGretzky]

I have no idea why nobody has grasped this, but "future considerations" means for free. Peter Chiarelli admitted this when he traded Marco Sturm to the Kings in 2010-11, and not once have we heard "this is what X team got for that future considerations trade two years ago".

Also, in your scenario, you could always lend them to another AHL team, but it's better to have your players develop together.

Yep pretty much how it is the future consideration is if we deal again with each other you kinda owe me one.

 

[bacon25]

IMO, Future considerations is basically the fist bump made after two teams have traded with each other.