Player Watch #5: Brandon Ellis - off to GC pick 39 as compo

Coach_Required

Premiership Player
Feb 19, 2008
4,296
9,822
Perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Sydney City Roosters & Liverpool
We all know its done on the fly, just guess work and it's what the AFL seems fit at the time, but I have total confidence in our club that we will make the most of it and probably come out on top in the end to be honest.

If this was 15 years ago when we had NFI, I would be totally pissed off but we will smack it out of the park anyway.
 

Ron The Bear

Heartbreakers, with your 44
Jul 4, 2006
31,188
30,036
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
That info is available on the various player databases

Ron The Bear do you have this detail?
As of today, excluding rookies and not accounting for players who've retired this year

25yo: 49
26yo: 53
27yo: 45
28yo: 51
29yo: 36
30yo: 28
31yo: 24
32yo: 17
33yo+: 16
 

Phar Ace

Premium Platinum
Feb 9, 2017
3,866
8,626
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Brisbane Bullets, Firebirds
As of today, excluding rookies and not accounting for players who've retired this year

25yo: 49
26yo: 53
27yo: 45
28yo: 51
29yo: 36
30yo: 28
31yo: 24
32yo: 17
33yo+: 16
Thanks Big Wonderful Bear. I estimated maybe 300 - your list suggests 319.

So Band 1 (First Round Pick) can only fit 16 players
Band 2 (end of First Round) 32 Players
Band 3 (2nd Round Pick) 64 players.

So for Brandon to be a 2 Band Compensation we need his non-incentivised contract payments per annum (averaged) to be in the top 48 players in the League. That's 2 and half players per Club. Without being able to apply bonus points for age it's still a but rubbery but better than we had on here yesterday. So if you think Brandon is being paid better at the Gold Coast than say the 3 best contracts for over 25 years olds at each AFL Club - bleat away!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Meteoric Rise

All Australian
Feb 4, 2008
865
3,066
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
This compensation system reminds me of the Richie Benaud designed system that was used for setting second innings targets in matches where the overs were reduced after the start of play in the early 90’s. It just has no mathematical integrity or fair logic underpinning it.

For those who don’t remember, the “great one” Richie Benaud somehow managed to fool people into thinking he had the answer to this problem that has since been dealt with much more satisfactorily by mathematicians Duckworth, Lewis, and latterly, Stern. Benaud’s suggestion had the great quality of simplicity and not much else at all going for it. Team A bats first and makes 260. Team B sets out in the chase and is say 2/120 after 24 overs, rain stops play. 15 overs are lost. Benaud’s answer was to reduce the target by the 15 lowest scoring overs in the first innings. Typically there would be maybe 4 overs with no run, 5 overs with 1 run and 6 overs with 2 runs scored from them....so the target would now be reduced by 17 and team B would require 244 to win...or 124 runs from 11 remaining overs! Of course it led to some farcical targets not anywhere near in keeping with the respective teams’ probability of winning prior to the delay and was promptly scrapped and somehow, the received wisdom on the foolish Benaud continued to be that he was the doyen of all things cricket.

This free agent compensation system is about as clumsy as that system. It defies all logical reasoning that massive differences in compensation(in the Ellis case the difference between pick 39 and pick 21) can possibly swing on tiny differences in contract. It is literally possible that $1 extra on a player’s contract could make that difference if we are to believe what we have been told of the system.

The AFL’s stated case for keeping the formula secret is that it is to avoid collusion and rorting. How about just make the system more sensible so small differences in contract cannot make a difference of up to 18 positions in the draft selection given as compensation? Then it won’t really be worth rorting because a few $k on a contract would only mean moving up one draft place from 39 to 38 or dropping from 21 to 22.

So for god’s sake, get an actuary expert, or a mathematician, or just someone with a clear and fair mind and design a proper system that awards draft points on a sliding scale in small increments based on age of player, contract, and if you must, the last ladder position of the team receiving the compensation. Plus any other relevant or fair factors. It really is not that hard.

Whatever anyone says about this, pick 39 is well below the tradeable value for a player like Ellis. I tend to think a player like him is worth a pick in the low 20’s, about what Richmond would have received had we finished near the bottom of the ladder in 2019. A fair progressive(ie taxes the better performing clubs and favours the weaker clubs) system in my judgement would have Ellis’s base value at say pick 22. If a wooden spooner loses a player like that they get compensated by about pick 13 and if the premier loses him they are compensated by about pick 30. Maybe you can argue swings and roundabouts because Vickery attracted pick 27 as compensation and he was worth about a pick in the 40’s at best on the market. But the system doesn’t need to contain swings and roundabouts, just make it precise and in so doing, more fair.
 

Phar Ace

Premium Platinum
Feb 9, 2017
3,866
8,626
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Brisbane Bullets, Firebirds
This compensation system reminds me of the Richie Benaud designed system that was used for setting second innings targets in matches where the overs were reduced after the start of play in the early 90’s. It just has no mathematical integrity or fair logic underpinning it.

For those who don’t remember, the “great one” Richie Benaud somehow managed to fool people into thinking he had the answer to this problem that has since been dealt with much more satisfactorily by mathematicians Duckworth, Lewis, and latterly, Stern. Benaud’s suggestion had the great quality of simplicity and not much else at all going for it. Team A bats first and makes 260. Team B sets out in the chase and is say 2/120 after 24 overs, rain stops play. 15 overs are lost. Benaud’s answer was to reduce the target by the 15 lowest scoring overs in the first innings. Typically there would be maybe 4 overs with no run, 5 overs with 1 run and 6 overs with 2 runs scored from them....so the target would now be reduced by 17 and team B would require 244 to win...or 124 runs from 11 remaining overs! Of course it led to some farcical targets not anywhere near in keeping with the respective teams’ probability of winning prior to the delay and was promptly scrapped and somehow, the received wisdom on the foolish Benaud continued to be that he was the doyen of all things cricket.

This free agent compensation system is about as clumsy as that system. It defies all logical reasoning that massive differences in compensation(in the Ellis case the difference between pick 39 and pick 21) can possibly swing on tiny differences in contract. It is literally possible that $1 extra on a player’s contract could make that difference if we are to believe what we have been told of the system.

The AFL’s stated case for keeping the formula secret is that it is to avoid collusion and rorting. How about just make the system more sensible so small differences in contract cannot make a difference of up to 18 positions in the draft selection given as compensation? Then it won’t really be worth rorting because a few $k on a contract would only mean moving up one draft place from 39 to 38 or dropping from 21 to 22.

So for god’s sake, get an actuary expert, or a mathematician, or just someone with a clear and fair mind and design a proper system that awards draft points on a sliding scale in small increments based on age of player, contract, and if you must, the last ladder position of the team receiving the compensation. Plus any other relevant or fair factors. It really is not that hard.

Whatever anyone says about this, pick 39 is well below the tradeable value for a player like Ellis. I tend to think a player like him is worth a pick in the low 20’s, about what Richmond would have received had we finished near the bottom of the ladder in 2019. A fair progressive(ie taxes the better performing clubs and favours the weaker clubs) system in my judgement would have Ellis’s base value at say pick 22. If a wooden spooner loses a player like that they get compensated by about pick 13 and if the premier loses him they are compensated by about pick 30. Maybe you can argue swings and roundabouts because Vickery attracted pick 27 as compensation and he was worth about a pick in the 40’s at best on the market. But the system doesn’t need to contain swings and roundabouts, just make it precise and in so doing, more fair.
Two things:
Compensation doesn't have to fair - just compensated.
The AFL will scrap if they change it, I suspect.
 

Meteoric Rise

All Australian
Feb 4, 2008
865
3,066
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Two things:
Compensation doesn't have to fair - just compensated.
The AFL will scrap if they change it, I suspect.
In law the aim of financial compensation is normally stated along these lines I think: “to place the victim/aggrieved party back into the position they were in prior to the action that is being compensated for taking place, as far as is possible to do so by financial means.”

So taking a lead from a good compensation system using draft picks as currency should endeavour to place the club losing the free agent back in the position they were in prior to losing the free agent as much as is possible to do so by means of a draft pick.

I would think that most people would see that as reasonable, you lose Ellis, you get in compensation a pick roughly equating to Ellis’s market value at that time, maybe plus or minus loading for ladder position if you want a progressive system. This way, we maybe get pick in low 30’s for Ellis, Motlop, Lycett attract something in a similar region, Hawks get pick 10 or so for Franklin, we get a pick in the 40’s for Vickery, and so on. I doubt people would find any of these outcomes as hard to accept as what the current system is producing.

I do think fairness is key to a good system.
 

Not Important

Club Legend
Oct 4, 2016
1,390
1,517
AFL Club
Richmond
In law the aim of financial compensation is normally stated along these lines I think: “to place the victim/aggrieved party back into the position they were in prior to the action that is being compensated for taking place, as far as is possible to do so by financial means.”

So taking a lead from a good compensation system using draft picks as currency should endeavour to place the club losing the free agent back in the position they were in prior to losing the free agent as much as is possible to do so by means of a draft pick.

I would think that most people would see that as reasonable, you lose Ellis, you get in compensation a pick roughly equating to Ellis’s market value at that time, maybe plus or minus loading for ladder position if you want a progressive system. This way, we maybe get pick in low 30’s for Ellis, Motlop, Lycett attract something in a similar region, Hawks get pick 10 or so for Franklin, we get a pick in the 40’s for Vickery, and so on. I doubt people would find any of these outcomes as hard to accept as what the current system is producing.

I do think fairness is key to a good system.
there is a "system"?:rolleyes:
 

Grrr

Premiership Player
Aug 16, 2009
4,796
10,094
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
In law the aim of financial compensation is normally stated along these lines I think: “to place the victim/aggrieved party back into the position they were in prior to the action that is being compensated for taking place, as far as is possible to do so by financial means.”

So taking a lead from a good compensation system using draft picks as currency should endeavour to place the club losing the free agent back in the position they were in prior to losing the free agent as much as is possible to do so by means of a draft pick.

I would think that most people would see that as reasonable, you lose Ellis, you get in compensation a pick roughly equating to Ellis’s market value at that time, maybe plus or minus loading for ladder position if you want a progressive system. This way, we maybe get pick in low 30’s for Ellis, Motlop, Lycett attract something in a similar region, Hawks get pick 10 or so for Franklin, we get a pick in the 40’s for Vickery, and so on. I doubt people would find any of these outcomes as hard to accept as what the current system is producing.

I do think fairness is key to a good system.
Pretty much what I've been saying all along. It is a bit harder to administer, one players ability often varies quite a lot (having read all 241 pages of the Ellis thread), but a mid to low 30's pick (taking the progressive system approach) would be about right for Ellis.
 

Phar Ace

Premium Platinum
Feb 9, 2017
3,866
8,626
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Brisbane Bullets, Firebirds
In law the aim of financial compensation is normally stated along these lines I think: “to place the victim/aggrieved party back into the position they were in prior to the action that is being compensated for taking place, as far as is possible to do so by financial means.”

So taking a lead from a good compensation system using draft picks as currency should endeavour to place the club losing the free agent back in the position they were in prior to losing the free agent as much as is possible to do so by means of a draft pick.

I would think that most people would see that as reasonable, you lose Ellis, you get in compensation a pick roughly equating to Ellis’s market value at that time, maybe plus or minus loading for ladder position if you want a progressive system. This way, we maybe get pick in low 30’s for Ellis, Motlop, Lycett attract something in a similar region, Hawks get pick 10 or so for Franklin, we get a pick in the 40’s for Vickery, and so on. I doubt people would find any of these outcomes as hard to accept as what the current system is producing.

I do think fairness is key to a good system.
noun
noun: compensation
  1. 1.
    something, typically money, awarded to someone in recognition of loss, suffering, or injury.
    "he is seeking compensation for injuries suffered at work"
I would agree with you in the real world, but this is the AFL and compensation doesn't have to equate to equal or fair - merely a contribution, albeit ideally to a near or same value, but in a benevolent dictatorship, merely a contribution of some sort will suffice. As there is no other Brandon Ellis waiting in the wings as compensation, compensation is 'something'. If compensation where truly fair then the receiving Club would pay. What makes the 'something' out of thin air is a little different to financial compensation, as you describe, and why I've suggested 'fair' is probably not the same as 'something'.

Your contribution to the discussion is outstanding mate!
 
Last edited:

damicky

🐯 🏆
Mar 22, 2019
867
1,645
AFL Club
Richmond
This compensation system reminds me of the Richie Benaud designed system that was used for setting second innings targets in matches where the overs were reduced after the start of play in the early 90’s. It just has no mathematical integrity or fair logic underpinning it.

For those who don’t remember, the “great one” Richie Benaud somehow managed to fool people into thinking he had the answer to this problem that has since been dealt with much more satisfactorily by mathematicians Duckworth, Lewis, and latterly, Stern. Benaud’s suggestion had the great quality of simplicity and not much else at all going for it. Team A bats first and makes 260. Team B sets out in the chase and is say 2/120 after 24 overs, rain stops play. 15 overs are lost. Benaud’s answer was to reduce the target by the 15 lowest scoring overs in the first innings. Typically there would be maybe 4 overs with no run, 5 overs with 1 run and 6 overs with 2 runs scored from them....so the target would now be reduced by 17 and team B would require 244 to win...or 124 runs from 11 remaining overs! Of course it led to some farcical targets not anywhere near in keeping with the respective teams’ probability of winning prior to the delay and was promptly scrapped and somehow, the received wisdom on the foolish Benaud continued to be that he was the doyen of all things cricket.

This free agent compensation system is about as clumsy as that system. It defies all logical reasoning that massive differences in compensation(in the Ellis case the difference between pick 39 and pick 21) can possibly swing on tiny differences in contract. It is literally possible that $1 extra on a player’s contract could make that difference if we are to believe what we have been told of the system.

The AFL’s stated case for keeping the formula secret is that it is to avoid collusion and rorting. How about just make the system more sensible so small differences in contract cannot make a difference of up to 18 positions in the draft selection given as compensation? Then it won’t really be worth rorting because a few $k on a contract would only mean moving up one draft place from 39 to 38 or dropping from 21 to 22.

So for god’s sake, get an actuary expert, or a mathematician, or just someone with a clear and fair mind and design a proper system that awards draft points on a sliding scale in small increments based on age of player, contract, and if you must, the last ladder position of the team receiving the compensation. Plus any other relevant or fair factors. It really is not that hard.

Whatever anyone says about this, pick 39 is well below the tradeable value for a player like Ellis. I tend to think a player like him is worth a pick in the low 20’s, about what Richmond would have received had we finished near the bottom of the ladder in 2019. A fair progressive(ie taxes the better performing clubs and favours the weaker clubs) system in my judgement would have Ellis’s base value at say pick 22. If a wooden spooner loses a player like that they get compensated by about pick 13 and if the premier loses him they are compensated by about pick 30. Maybe you can argue swings and roundabouts because Vickery attracted pick 27 as compensation and he was worth about a pick in the 40’s at best on the market. But the system doesn’t need to contain swings and roundabouts, just make it precise and in so doing, more fair.
I don’t think Duckworth-Lewis was a great success either.

It’s frustrating that the goalposts have been moved ... BUT the RFC will make the best out of what we’ve been given
(I couldn’t have honestly said that 10, 15 or 20 years ago).
 

Grrr

Premiership Player
Aug 16, 2009
4,796
10,094
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
noun
noun: compensation
  1. 1.
    something, typically money, awarded to someone in recognition of loss, suffering, or injury.
    "he is seeking compensation for injuries suffered at work"
I would agree with you in the real world, but this is the AFL and compensation doesn't have to equate to equal or fair - merely a contribution, albeit ideally to a near or same value, but in a benevolent dictatorship, merely a contribution of some sort will suffice. As there is no other Brandon Ellis waiting in the wings as compensation, compensation is 'something'. If compensation where truly fair then the receiving Club would pay. What makes the 'something' out of thin air is a little different to financial compensation, as you describe, and why I've suggested 'fair' is probably not the same as 'something'.

Your contribution to the discussion is outstanding mate!
Led by the oppressive strongman Gil McLachlan.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Phar Ace

Premium Platinum
Feb 9, 2017
3,866
8,626
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Brisbane Bullets, Firebirds
I reckon pick 39 is pretty fair compo.

The fact that we almost got pick 20 was a bit laughable tbh. I don't reckon he would've played 10 games next year if he stayed...
There are precious few us mate. Our whipping boys are crapp until we need something from them off the park, then they suddenly become Top 50 25+ year olds. Brandon is probably being paid overs and we got excited.................
 
Last edited:

Tony Stark

All Australian
Oct 12, 2015
850
3,234
AFL Club
Richmond
Pretty much what I've been saying all along. It is a bit harder to administer, one players ability often varies quite a lot (having read all 241 pages of the Ellis thread), but a mid to low 30's pick (taking the progressive system approach) would be about right for Ellis.
Exactly and I think most Tiger supporters would agree however it's the principal of the whole saga that is the sticking point. Precedents seem to have been thrown out the window on this occasion and a "Tiger Premier" rule seems to have implemented in place.

Like alot of rules applied this year that have seemed to go against us as a club the AFL has then quickly followed up with a rule tweak on the run to avoid it adversely affectingi others in the future. I expect something to happen in that respect so we then become yet again the "one off" recipient of another AFL bad call.
 

tropicaltiger

🏆2017🏆2019
Jan 4, 2002
4,231
8,945
cairns
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Snakes
I reckon pick 39 is pretty fair compo.

The fact that we almost got pick 20 was a bit laughable tbh. I don't reckon he would've played 10 games next year if he stayed...
i reckon brando is an automatic in our best 22 if he stayed... we are so good ellis being playing as a defensive role player probably was a bit unfair on him at times as he often played a bit shackled and more dour and less creative

AT GC...will combine his freewheelin style of his early days with his defensive running power to be one of suns most valuable players in 2020 and beyond.... the signing on from macca, lambert, bash and sheds, plus the stunning form of stackman and pickett just made it an easy arrangement and win/win for both ellis and tiger camps.
 

Grrr

Premiership Player
Aug 16, 2009
4,796
10,094
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
Exactly and I think most Tiger supporters would agree however it's the principal of the whole saga that is the sticking point. Precedents seem to have been thrown out the window on this occasion and a "Tiger Premier" rule seems to have implemented in place.

Like alot of rules applied this year that have seemed to go against us as a club the AFL has then quickly followed up with a rule tweak on the run to avoid it adversely affectingi others in the future. I expect something to happen in that respect so we then become yet again the "one off" recipient of another AFL bad call.
I'm okay with it because the pick we got for Ellis whilst a bit high was fairish. But if it was a better player my largesse might nor have been quite so forthcoming. They do need to sort it out or make it more transparent. Still it's only October, can't get worked up until draft time.
 

Grrr

Premiership Player
Aug 16, 2009
4,796
10,094
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
i reckon brando is an automatic in our best 22 if he stayed... we are so good ellis being playing as a defensive role player probably was a bit unfair on him at times as he often played a bit shackled and more dour and less creative

AT GC...will combine his freewheelin style of his early days with his defensive running power to be one of suns most valuable players in 2020 and beyond.... the signing on from macca, lambert, bash and sheds, plus the stunning form of stackman and pickett just made it an easy arrangement and win/win for both ellis and tiger camps.
Of course you are half right and so are the negative posters in regard to next year at Richmond, but he might be given a bit more latitude to use his assets ie running and linking up at GC as you say. He was definitely shackled in his role at Richmond, the change will do him good. Got to wish him luck no matter where you stand.
 

Phar Ace

Premium Platinum
Feb 9, 2017
3,866
8,626
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Brisbane Bullets, Firebirds
I'm okay with it because the pick we got for Ellis whilst a bit high was fairish. But if it was a better player my largesse might nor have been quite so forthcoming. They do need to sort it out or make it more transparent. Still it's only October, can't get worked up until draft time.
Frankly, I think the Club is grateful for a bit of extra Cap space to be able to do something. Whatever Brandon was on - now available - $128k for a draftee at 39. Winner winner chicken dinner!
 

Cdog71

Premium Platinum
Sep 21, 2017
2,532
6,496
AFL Club
Richmond
To be honest I don’t really care a stuff where the compensation pick falls.
What annoys me is the convoluted nonsense they trot out,
It seems to me and point it out if I’m wrong that the priority picks they’re giving to GC pushes everyone in the que two spots in the first rnd and they get the first pick of the second rnd regardless of whomever was supposed to, then couple that with us getting an early rnd second pick it’s more than just one club being affected by the fact the AFL stuffed up the GC to start with.

No one in the media seems to be mentioning another year or two of compromised drafts
 

mopsy

Premiership Player
Jan 1, 2005
3,751
6,331
Other Teams
RICHMOND
Pretty much what I've been saying all along. It is a bit harder to administer, one players ability often varies quite a lot (having read all 241 pages of the Ellis thread), but a mid to low 30's pick (taking the progressive system approach) would be about right for Ellis.
this is spot on. Based on his ability and actual performaces pick 39 is probably about right even though i wouldnt give ya a pack of crispy cremes for him.
 

mopsy

Premiership Player
Jan 1, 2005
3,751
6,331
Other Teams
RICHMOND
Frankly, I think the Club is grateful for a bit of extra Cap space to be able to do something. Whatever Brandon was on - now available - $128k for a draftee at 39. Winner winner chicken dinner!
Correct me if im wrong but wouldnt ellis to qualify for f/a and fall close to a band 2 while at it have to be around the 600k mark.
As far as i can asceretain we were paying him in the vicinity of 600k a yr.

If this is the case and we have only offered him 350k to stay then little wonder he is going.

If the above is accurate and im not saying it is fact, but if it is accurate then you could make the argument that we have forced him out to make room within our salary cap.What i dont get is why no one has questioned the wisdom of us paying him 600k to start with

Yes the club have said they want him to stay but only at the new contract price.
 
Last edited:

Top Bottom