Your post makes it clear that, indeed, the free agent thing needs to be explained.
I've never mentioned free agency, so I don't know why you brought this up. I am talking about the reporting. Even in free agency if you mislead your customer base, it is bad business.
Here's what I think happened:
Amendola was cut, and about five seconds later the reporter was on the phone to him and Danny said, "sure I would like to come back."
Then after working the story and the team for a couple of days, someone inside the Pats (who even knows) leaked to him, "yes we're interested" because what the heck. There is nothing to lose.
There was no problem going with the first tweet, but the second one gives his followers the idea there was mutual interest, when in fact there was never any mutual interest. If the reporter tried find out what teams were saying Danny was going to be offered, the reporter would have known there was nothing to report.The reporter should have checked with Danny's camp and at least reported the response, before going with the second tweet and misleading his readers. At 10:30 PM the pats surely were out, if they were even in beyond a minimum deal anyway.
This isn't the way it works with the good reporters. Some might get duped, but this was weak sloppy reporting. That was never ok in any era.