- Thread starter
- #41
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 31,527
- Reaction score
- 876
After reading what you stated, I don't agree with it.
As I read it, that all deals with colluding against a player or players. The nature of restricted free agency means that Butler would be free to choose whether or not he signed a potential Saints deal. Only way it would be collusion, I guess, would be if the Pats lied to him and told him they were signing him to a long term deal to stay there, only to immediately trade him to NO.
If anything, the Pats and Saints would be working to benefit Butler and would be the exact opposite of collusion as it is stated here.
As I read it, that all deals with colluding against a player or players. The nature of restricted free agency means that Butler would be free to choose whether or not he signed a potential Saints deal. Only way it would be collusion, I guess, would be if the Pats lied to him and told him they were signing him to a long term deal to stay there, only to immediately trade him to NO.
If anything, the Pats and Saints would be working to benefit Butler and would be the exact opposite of collusion as it is stated here.