3-Year Prize

[Andrew - Commissioner]

Copying and pasting a post from Brandon in the General Board...

With the first three year prize recently awarded (congratulations Dave), it seems as though the theory has outweighed the practice. This season saw only two teams with any shot at cashing in. Of these two teams one had won in the first year of calculating the totals and the other (the winner) had finished second in two of the three seasons.

From start to finish there really were only two teams which stood a chance unless both absolutely tanked.

Next year's prize also looks to be another battle of two teams, with a third having a very outside chance at winning (needing + 35pts). Looking at the two top teams involved we see that one took home the top prize in 2011, and finished 4th in 2012 while the other finished second in the previous two seasons.

Whether or not this prize encourages teams to fight for a few points at the end of the season it's clear that the prize is simply rewarding teams who have already been rewarded. In other words, you have no shot at the 3 year prize unless you cashed in (highly) in a previous season (or two).


To me, the prize is secondary, it's a bonus. While there was a time during this season where I was looking at the three year prize as the lone way of me making money, I was still trying to put together the best team possible while not killing myself for the future. I think every team goes into each deadline with the same thinking. It's unlikely that a team is going to shoot themselves in the foot for the future for a shot at a three year prize.


I understand the theory behind this prize, but it is clear that the winner of the prize is going to have to be a team who cashed in at least once leading up to it. It isn't really offering motivation to teams in the basement or in the middle of the pack.

Due to this, I think it is best if we pump the money back into the winner's pool, or possibly make some sort of "best of the worst" prize. Say $50 for the basement dwelling team that finishes July with the highest BA. $50 for the basement dwelling team that finishes August with the most strikeouts or saves.

Doing such will encourage teams to be more active on FA ensuring they have a full and productive lineup. It will increase the overall activity and intensity of the league. Take a look at the last month of transactions, it is heavily weighted with teams that were fighting to cash in. If we give some incentive to the basement dwellers, possibly there will be more activity the final weeks/months of the season.

[Dave - Mistakes By The Lake]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that the three year prize rewards teams that have finished in the money in the past three years. Obviously, the purpose of the three year prize is to reward teams for trying to remain competitive, even when they're not going to cash. In my case, the one year in the past three that I haven't cashed, I believe I finished sixth.

That year, I rebuilt a little bit, but didn't sell off all my assets in the first month of the season, which I know a few of us feel is bad for the health / competitive balance of the league. Now some teams have rebuilt this way with great success (Andrew / Josh), but it's undoubtedly more fun for everyone when there are more teams attempting to win than when there are less. Some teams are still likely going to use this approach, but maybe in Joey's case it's worth it to dump early this year to set himself up for several great years of money finishes + being in the running for the three year prize. This is the first year the prize was awarded. It wasn't really tangible before this year. I think we at least owe it a couple more years to see what the effect is like beyond those first three seasons.

For example, for a while Andrew went dump-compete-dump-compete. He's cashed two years in a row now, but don't you think he's a little more likely to try to compete again next year than he would be if he wasn't in a strong position to win the three year prize? That might be the difference between him dumping in April or dumping in July, if he knows he can't finish more than 15 or so points behind me (if he decided to rebuild). Don't you think I'm more likely to try to compete next year than I would be if I wasn't in decent shape to win it again?

One point you make that I can understand is that there aren't a ton of teams in the running for it. I've said before that I'd favor putting MORE money into the three year prize, to make the incentive to compete every year stronger. Maybe instead of making the single-winner three year prize as high as I'd like ($400-600), we make the three year prize $600 split among the top three teams during that period? That would put a lot more teams in the running for it.

We pay out a TON for first place, which is good, but I'd be willing to sacrifice some of that if it meant we had more competitive balance every year.

[Andrew - Commissioner]

I just want to point out that regardless of how the league feels, there will be a 3-year prize in 2013, as I have already collected $100 toward the $200 prize. As a reminder, since we came up with this idea leading into the 2010 season, here's a breakdown of money that has been set aside for the 3-year prizes:
2010 - $100 (paid for half of 2012 prize)
2011 - $100 (paid for half of 2012 prize)
2012 - $100 (paid for half of 2013 prize)

Next year we will similarly set aside $100 to finish paying for the 2013 season. At that point, however, we will have no funds devoted toward future prizes. Accordingly, I'd really like to get a good idea of where each member of the league stands on this issue so that we can lock something in for like 5 years without changing things.

[lafavor]

I don't mind having a three year prize but I guess I would like to see it worth more. I know that is difficult because we want to compensate owners for annual prizes. One way to increase this prize is to increase the entry fee to maybe 225-250. I would be open to this for the amount of time I spend in this league. Not sure what other owners feel about this.

[Joey - A Great Teammate]

I definitely understand the purpose of the three-year prize, and we do need something to encourage all owners to compete. However, I can't really say that I think about the three-year prize very often as I'm more interested in winning during a given season.

I'd be open to other incentives for owners to compete, but don't really think we should be taking more money away from the season's winners to beef up the three-year prize. I'm also against raising the entry fee.

All in all, I'd rather see the current way stay, or just get rid of the three-year prize altogether and come up with a different incentive.

[Brandon's NiagaraStars of Guri]

Dave,

Your argument holds some merit, but again, using Andrew as an example, it's obviously in an owners interest to punt a season in order to stock pile assets for the future. Next year, I doubt Andrew sacrifices the future for a chance at the 3-year prize, especially with the formula he has laid out.

If the three-year prize increased significantly, $500+ then I think it would be something to play for. But again, it appears as though a team needs to finish in the money twice in order to have a shot, so the three-year prize isn't really an incentive to stay competitive, but a way of dividing end of year prize money.

[Chad H.]

I like the current structure of the 3-year prize. I've spoken out ad nauseum on the topic and believe that the sample results we have thus far (1 prize awarded) is too small a sample to recognize trends.

I understand your argument Brandon that you perceive this to be a distribution of prize money to teams who have already cashed in, but I think we need to see at least 3 years of results to understand the impact on behavior.

Furthermore, I am wholeheartedly opposed to awarding prizes for monthly performance to cellar dwellers or any single stat award. Seems like the opposite of what a ROTO league is all about.

[Chad H.]

Also- regarding Andrews request to lock things in. I totally agree with this. It seems that our constitution is governed like California, a plebiscite driven democracy. It should be that way, but at the same time, I think that any rule that has already been voted in should require more than a simple majority to renege.

I don't know what the solution is, perhaps any rule that is voted in can only be reviewed after 3-5 years of implementation?

[Brandon's NiagaraStars of Guri]

Oh, I'm not suggesting we do away with it immediately.

In terms of the suggestion, I'm trying to think of a way to encourage the basement dwellers to stay active - which is the premise behind the 3 year prize as it is.

[creepcrew]

I personally like the idea of a rolling 3 year prize.

[Chad H.]

I support the continued investment in the 3-year prize. As we continue to get more information on its influence on competition, I would also support others recommendations that we increase the prize.

My recommendation would be to take $100 from the annual first place prize starting next year and allocate that towards the 3-year prize. So beginning in 2014, the 3-year prize would be worth $300 instead of $200.

Based on the conversations we have had, I honestly believe that there are a number of managers who have chosen to remain competitive through June and July because of the chance of cashing in on the 3-year. If we incrementally increase this pot, I believe we will see more of the "middle of the pack" teams continue to compete.

[Brandon's NiagaraStars of Guri]

I have to say, the prize doesn't seem to be working. It can't be argued that it is preventing teams from all out punting a season, or even dealing any of their players. This is the second year in a row that I'm in contention for it, and I'd like to see it done away with. Had Jean Segura not been Jesus Segura for my team this year, I would have sold all assets in order to better situate myself for next season. I don't think there are any teams that see any quality pieces for 2014 that are refusing to trade because of this prize.

In order to make this something that teams are playing for, it should be $500+, but again, I think we are just feeding into the pockets of teams that won money in the first place. Unless I win it this year, we're likely looking at Dave or Chad taking home the prize. Both cashed in during previous seasons. Even if I win, I'll likely finish in the top 5 for a second straight season.

[Chad H.]

If I win itb this year, it will be because I have remained competitive each year. My (presumed) finishes the last 3 years: 3rd, 8th, X this year (likely 3-4).

[lafavor44]

I like the idea of the 3-year prize. However, the current prize needs to be increased in my opinion. What if we increased the entry fee to $225 and put that additional money in the three-year prize?

[Andrew - Commissioner]

Just a reminder, there is no funding set aside for any future 3-year prizes, so we'll have to adjust the regular season prize pool going forward if we continue to have this.

[bravesgm]

I voted to discontinue the prize. I like the idea of more money being placed into the pool.

[Joey - A Great Teammate]

I originally thought this was a good idea, but I now agree with the points made by Brandon and Brian. For this prize to be really effective, a significant amount of money would need to be allocated towards it. With that in mind, I don't think winning the 3-year prize should net you the same cash as coming in second place for a season. The goal of any league is to win, not to earn 80 points and finish 5th every year.

Therefore, I like the idea of having more money in the prize pool. I think we should reward those who succeed, or come close, in winning the league. By raising the payouts at the top, owners will be more inclined to go after 1st, which is good for competition in my eyes.

There's no way for us to eliminate rebuilding. Even with restrictions, owners will find a way to begin planning for next year, some earlier than others. I feel that less restriction is best in this case. If we're all working towards that grand prize, you'll do all in your power to position yourself better to make a run at it, whether it be this year, next year, or the one after that.

I understand the argument for keeping owners interested until the end of the year. Once the trade deadline pasts, rebuilders will likely pay less attention (except on Sundays for FAAB, perhaps). For this reason (if the 3-year prize is voted out), I think we should revisit a notion Andrew brought up a while back: post-deadline trades. We could work out the specifics, but I think this is something that would keep rebuilders tweaking their lineups and working out deals to better position themselves for the following spring.

In conclusion, I vote to discontinue the 3-year prize.

[Chad H.]

I voted yes, as I think the incentive to remain competitive throughout the end of the year make the league more enjoyable and engaging.

I have voiced my opinion many times over. I suppose the cards will fall where they may.

Healthy competition is what makes any league worthwhile in the long run. When teams start to drop out en masse in May, it takes away some of the enjoyment.

If we do drop this, I would like to see the money moved to be split among the 2nd through 4th prizes as follows:

2nd-$600
3rd-$400
4th-$250

[Joey - A Great Teammate]

I would also be in support of allocating most of the three-year prize funds to 2nd through 4th prizes. As long as 1st continues to provide a profit of $1,000, I'd be open to most distributions.

[Brandon's NiagaraStars of Guri]

The three year prize is a good idea if we are willing to add a considerable amount more money to the pool. It is clear that the prize itself does not prevent teams from dumping and is either going to me (a team that will again be just shy of the money) or Chad/Dave, two teams who finished in the money during the duration of the prize.

I'd like us to continue the three year prize, but it should be worth as much as the 3rd or maybe even 2nd place finishes. This would definitely make people think before selling assets.

I voted yes, however I don't like it in it's current state.

[Andrew - Commissioner]

Adam emailed me his response is no, so the vote is now 6-4. Waiting for Anthony, Dave, and Paul...

[Andrew - Commissioner]

Dave has voted yes. The vote is now 7 to 4. Accordingly, there will be a 3-year prize next season. As it stands, the vote doesn't meet the 2/3 requirement to lock in the policy for five years. However, Anthony and Paul still have yet to vote.

I've emailed Anthony and Paul three times to vote on this. Perhaps they're not returning...