Tommy Kelly salary watch

When you read the next article or insinuation from our fine local media corps about how Belichick cut Kelly because we are so cheap, check this out.

Reiss's "catching up with former patriots" column today, mentions Kelly playing time. If he plays the rest of the games at 60% snaps, he would have maxed out his Patriot contract. He's at 71%

With Siliga being IRed, it's conceivable he'd be similar (we had to pick up 2 big men) so he gave up about 1.5 million in that scenario.

Of course, he pocketed the 100K signing bonus, from us, to play for vet minimum. So he would have collected (based on 60% or more playing time) 2.6 million, including bonus, from us.

And he asked to be let go to "test the market." Apparently it wasn't a math test.

Stats people, please check my math, if necessary.

Reiss
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-...685/catching-up-with-former-patriots-week-9-2

Field Yates
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4760174/tommy-kelly-restructures-pact

This was one move that I was not in favour of. It weakened us at a position where we had players coming off injury and where injuries are fairly common. Kelly knew the system and by all accounts was a good team guy. Looking to save a little money here and in doing so, weakening the DL, still; makes no sense to me.

RayClay said:

When you read the next article or insinuation from our fine local media corps about how Belichick cut Kelly because we are so cheap, check this out.

Reiss's "catching up with former patriots" column today, mentions Kelly playing time. If he plays the rest of the games at 60% snaps, he would have maxed out his Patriot contract. He's at 71%

With Siliga being IRed, it's conceivable he'd be similar (we had to pick up 2 big men) so he gave up about 1.5 million in that scenario.

Of course, he pocketed the 100K signing bonus, from us, to play for vet minimum. So he would have collected (based on 60% or more playing time) 2.6 million, including bonus, from us.

And he asked to be let go to "test the market." Apparently wasmn't a math test.

Stats people, please check my math, if necessary.

Reiss
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-...685/catching-up-with-former-patriots-week-9-2

Field Yates
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4760174/tommy-kelly-restructures-pact

Click to expand...

I don't think he would be playing here anyway.

BelizePats said:

This was one move that I was not in favour of. It weakened us at a position where we had players coming off injury and where injuries are fairly common. Kelly knew the system and by all accounts was a good team guy. Looking to save a little money here and in doing so, weakening the DL, still; makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

We weren't really weakened

I believe even Belichick regrets it, Kelly is playing at a high level in Arizona.
It was a mistake, acknowledge that and move on.
Mistakes happen.

AndyJohnson said:

I don't think he would be playing here anyway.

Click to expand...

I think he got his feelings hurt, or wanted some guarantee, but if you mean he wouldn't have gotten snaps with Siliga, then Chandler Jones out, there's no way to prove it and we'll just disagree.

Hard to blame Kelly, more his agent. Kelly's not doing the math.

Much like with the OL, we've weathered the storm of replacing a vet in Kelly on the DL - but I disagree with the notion he couldn't help out the team talent-wise. Looks like more a situation where Belichick saw a guy whose priorities didn't align right, looked at his value over replacement, and decided he wasn't worth it. There is something to be said about having [as many of the] 53 guys with the same goal. But with Siliga out, I wonder if he regrets it.

varjao said:

I believe even Belichick regrets, Kelly is playing in a high level in Arizona. It was a mistake, acknowledge that and move on. Mistakes happen.

Click to expand...

Kelly asked to be released.

Never liked the move. Never will. Good team guy, great player and provides push up the middle.

But I'll take 7-2, squashed donkeys and a team that's humming along.

Alan Branch might sweeten the sour taste about Kelly, however. We'll know more in two weeks - Indy can run the ball.

BradyManny said:

Hard to blame Kelly, more his agent. Kelly's not doing the math.

Much like with the OL, we've weathered the storm of replacing a vet in Kelly on the DL - but I disagree with the notion he couldn't help out the team talent-wise. Looks like more a situation where Belichick saw a guy whose priorities didn't align right, looked at his value over replacement, and decided he wasn't worth it. There is something to be said about having [as many of the] 53 guys with the same goal. But with Siliga out, I wonder if he regrets it.

Click to expand...

Did I say he couldn't have helped the team? I said the opposite. He asked to be released, he said so, and BB honored his wish.

If everyone was healthy, I don't know how much he would have played. All I know is, he absolutely would have got more money from us than from Arizona if he was on the roster, even if he didn't play a single down.

He agreed to a restructure that was not bad, especially given the alternative.

BradyManny said:

Hard to blame Kelly, more his agent. Kelly's not doing the math.

Much like with the OL, we've weathered the storm of replacing a vet in Kelly on the DL - but I disagree with the notion he couldn't help out the team talent-wise. Looks like more a situation where Belichick saw a guy whose priorities didn't align right, looked at his value over replacement, and decided he wasn't worth it. There is something to be said about having [as many of the] 53 guys with the same goal. But with Siliga out, I wonder if he regrets it.

Click to expand...

I forgot, is agent probably took 15% for getting him the least he could legally get.

I didn't think salary was the given reason for Kelly's release request. IIRC, he asked to be released because he didn't think he would be a starter, particularly in the scheme we were adopting, and he wanted to play.

RayClay said:

Kelly asked to be released.

Click to expand...

For whatever reason, he didn't want to be here, so I doubt it would have worked out.

I am hopeful that Alan Branch will make up in part for the loss of Kelly, though they are different players.

Haley said:

I didn't think salary was the given reason for Kelly's release request. IIRC, he asked to be released because he didn't think he would be a starter, particularly in the scheme we were adopting, and he wanted to play.

Click to expand...

Seems so. My point, is and I say it clearly., when writers say we cut him because we're cheap they are lying and they know it.

He asked to be released. If he wants to play for peanuts for the love of the game, gawd bless him. It was his choice.

Personally, I was fine if they wanted to use the younger players more, or if he stayed and played and made more, -to a lot more - here, since we had injuries.

mayoclinic said:

For whatever reason, he didn't want to be here, so I doubt it would have worked out.

I am hopeful that Alan Branch will make up in part for the loss of Kelly, though they are different players.

Click to expand...

It's a hypothetical Mayoclinic. I just get sick of the writer tweets that the Pats are cheap or idiots. Of course you don't want a disgruntled player, but BB's not going to make lying promises for playing time either.

RayClay said:

It's a hypothetical Mayoclinic. I just get sick of the writer tweets that the Pats are cheap or idiots. Of course you don't want a disgruntled player, but BB's not going to make lying promises for playing time either.

Click to expand...

I wasn't criticizing you or the OP in any way. Didn't mean to convey that at all.

RayClay said:

Kelly asked to be released.

Click to expand...

I know but there was a situation leading to that.

Tommy Kelly was unhappy here. Why do so many people seem to think that denying his release request would somehow make him happy to be here? I believe it would have been the opposite. He would be been even more unhappy.

Hasn't everyone been in a situation where they didn't like what was happening? Would staying in that situation make you any happier?

RayClay said:

Seems so. My point, is and I say it clearly., when writers say we cut him because we're cheap they are lying and they know it.

He asked to be released. If he wants to play for peanuts for the love of the game, gawd bless him. It was his choice.

Personally, I was fine if they wanted to use the younger players more, or if he stayed and played and made more, -to a lot more - here, since we had injuries.

Click to expand...

And I agree with you. The press is ridiculous. And I think it has been proven over and over that the Pats are not cheap. While there may be spending gaps in a given year, they make them up in the following years.

My point was that his contract here was very incentives-based and he feared he wouldn't play which would mean no play and no money. So when Reiss speculates his contract would have maxed out with 60% snaps, I'm not sure that Kelly saw that happening. You say he failed the math test, I'm not so sure he did. I think he felt 60% snaps would not even come close to happening for him here because at the time we didn't have injuries. In the end I think it was more about play time for him than money but they are both tied together. I don't really think this was where your OP meant to go but since you did bring this up, I thought I'd chime in on what I remembered.

Assuming that its true that he asked for his release, if were BB, I would have told him,

"sorry me, but we really need you. You've been around Tommy. You should know how quickly things change in the NFL. Yes, at this point we want to go with a rotation at DT, but who knows how things turn out as the seasons go on. One key injury and you'll be back in my offense complaining about TOO much playing time. Stick around Tommy, I think its going to be a good year here."

Kelly is have a more than solid year with the Cards. I'm happy for him, and sad for us.