Quote:Hmm. Interesting.

 

It's inferred by your post - but I assume having a player sign the tender does not negate the club's ability to use the franchise tag the following year.

 

I also assume, based on what Tucker said, that a team can put language in a tender offer re a future non-use of a franchise tag. I guess that's not considered a "poison pill".

 

This GM stuff can have many levels.

 

It does not, Cleveland could tender him again next season, just at an increased price. Also from my understanding, a poison pill provision is when the contract would be considered different for the two teams, like Nate Burleson's deal with Seattle where his entire deal was guaranteed if he played five games in Minnesota during one season.

---