Kelly Washington, Billy Yates cut

[BadMoFo]

Wondering when we'd make some cuts.

Washington & Yates cut
Posted by Mike Reiss, Globe Staff February 17, 2009 06:30 PM

The Patriots released WR Kelley Washington and C/G Billy Yates today.

Washington, 29, has primarily been a special teams contributor in each of the last two seasons since signing with the Patriots.

Yates, 28, has been a valuable reserve at center and guard, filling in as a starter in seven games in 2008.

Both players were entering the final year of their contracts.

Washington was scheduled to earn $800,000, with a $57,000 workout bonus. His salary cap charge was $1.08 million.

Yates was scheduled to earn $650,000, with a $32,000 workout bonus. He did have an escalator in his contract that could have upped his salary by another $200,000. Not accounting for the escalator, his salary cap charge was $790,600.

 

[Patjew]

I'm really surprised about Washington. Too bad, I liked him.

Glad about Yates.

 

[Remix 6]

I know Washington restructured his contract last year but he was still making too much for a special teamer . Sam Aiken is a very good ST with more offensive ability

Yates..im surprised. He stepped in at times last year and played well and for a guy not expensive at all..im shocked

 

[Jimke]

Freeing up a little salary cap room to re-sign someone? Back

in Belichick's first year when the Patriots were tight against the

cap, he had to cut a player to sign someone he wanted.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I cant never understood why Washington was never more used as a WR.. Hope this means we resign jabar..

 

[jmt57]

All right, I'll be the first to say it: does the minimal net cap savings of cutting players like Washington and Yates mean that the Pats are expecting to have almost no cap room - i.e., that they are planning on keeping Cassel?

 

[Patjew]

I know Washington restructured his contract last year but he was still making too much for a special teamer . Sam Aiken is a very good ST with more offensive ability

Yates..im surprised. He stepped in at times last year and played well and for a guy not expensive at all..im shocked

Funny, I thought Yates played terribly.

 

[Lampshade]

Wow. Really surprised by Washington.

 

[miDeuce]

All right, I'll be the first to say it: does the minimal net cap savings of cutting players like Washington and Yates mean that the Pats are expecting to have almost no cap room - i.e., that they are planning on keeping Cassel?

I don't think it really was "minimal"... Washington, Yates and Aiken are the three highest paid non-starters on the team, they all were making far more than the rookie contracts that are just below them. This cleared about 1.5 million in cap space... (this is all based on Miguel's patscap.com)...

 

[Leave No Doubt]

Buhbye Yates:bye2:

Washington sorta surprises me but maybe as someone mentioned, BB's got his eye on someone.

Pats news,yay!:yeeha:

 

[mayoclinic]

I'm surprised by both. I've never been a Yates fan, but with Hochstein unsigned he seemed to fill a necessary hole. Washington was a fantastic STer, and I really thought he could take over from Izzo as ST captain.

 

[BPF]

The move clears about $1.9 mil in cap space ($1.871 mil) and with replacements already on the roster in Aiken and Connolly these moves are not that surprising. Washington was fantastic on STs in his 1st year with the Pats but was injured and fell off last year, in addition the Pats simply don't believe he is as good a receiver as Aiken as evidenced by last year's playing time and production on offense. Yates, although I like him personally as a friend, has proven to be a very average player. He is a little undersized and has limited athleticism and strength. He has the athleticism of a heavy footed stout blocker but not enough functional strength to be as effective as he needs to be. Technique and effort he is solid but simply does not have the tools to be an effective player for long periods of time. I'm sorry to see him go but I understand the move.

 

[Remix 6]

Funny, I thought Yates played terribly.

i recall BB pointing out Yates on a few pulls.

 

[Patjew]

i recall BB pointing out Yates on a few pulls.

Could be, I'm no OL expert. He just seemed to get burned quite a bit early in the year and the line seemed to improve dramatically when he was not playing.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

All I know is Neal's return seemed to make a huge difference.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It could be that they need the room for RFA/ERFA tenders (Woods, Alexander, Ventrone).

I'm kinda surprised the Patriots cut Washington, but not depressed over it.

 

[jmt57]

I don't think it really was "minimal"... Washington, Yates and Aiken are the three highest paid non-starters on the team, they all were making far more than the rookie contracts that are just below them. This cleared about 1.5 million in cap space... (this is all based on Miguel's patscap.com)...

Part of my reasoning was in regards to the net effect; the players cut have to be replaced by someone in terms of the salary cap (rule of 51) and a replacement player would be at minimum $310k. The possibility of a targeted player with an agreement in principle already in place is certainly a possibility, as is an extension for somebody already under contract.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

Could be, I'm no OL expert. He just seemed to get burned quite a bit early in the year and the line seemed to improve dramatically when he was not playing.

there was one game in particular, i cant remember which, that yates was really, really bad...

 

[miDeuce]

Part of my reasoning was in regards to the net effect; the players cut have to be replaced by someone in terms of the salary cap (rule of 51) and a replacement player would be at minimum $310k. The possibility of a targeted player with an agreement in principle already in place is certainly a possibility, as is an extension for somebody already under contract.

But if their "replacements" are already under contract on the roster (i.e. Aiken and Connolly) wouldn't the savings made by cutting them be entirely re-assignable?

 

[jmt57]

But if their "replacements" are already under contract on the roster (i.e. Aiken and Connolly) wouldn't the savings made by cutting them be entirely re-assignable?

As I understand it, the salary cap is based on the cumulative salary cap number of the top 51 players. So if player #52 and #53 take the place of two cut players, the fact they are already under contract and on the roster is irrelevant.