CLEVELAND, Ohio - LeBron James could be on the verge of something unprecedented -- an NBA superstar agreeing to his third consecutive one-year deal and leaving millions in guaranteed money on the table.

If that's what he does - takes a one-year, $27.5 million contract with a player's option for 2017-18 with the Cavs - he'd be the fourth league star to agree to that kind of deal this offseason. Kevin Durant, Dwyane Wade, and Pau Gasol have already done it.

When it comes to this kind of one-year deals for superstars, James is the godfather. He was the first to ask for one under the current collective bargaining agreement when he returned to the Cavs from Miami in in the summer of 2014. (It's entirely different from Michael Jordan's one-year contracts in 1996 and 1997).

The stated intention at the time was money - James wanted to put himself in position to earn the most financially in every season and capitalize on the coming explosion in the salary cap. But James also extracted for himself a certain amount of leverage in Cleveland, holding over the front office the threat, however remote, that he could leave the organization if he felt there was not a commitment to winning.

Now, as the NBA prepares for its first season of an avalanche of extra cash from its nine-year, $24 billion TV deal, and both the owners and players' union are talking about opting out of the collective bargaining agreement, James' method of contracting is a reason the owners want to head back to the bargaining table.

James hasn't exactly changed the league by seeking one-year deals, mostly because there are only a few stars with enough power and security to get these kinds of concessions from their teams.

But he and his agent - Rich Paul - nevertheless exposed a loophole in the current system, and swayed, however marginally, the balance of power from NBA front offices toward players when it comes to contracts and building rosters.

"Any general manager's objective for his franchise is to put together a roster for his team that has sustainability," said Stu Jackson, former executive vice president for the NBA and former general manager of the Memphis Grizzlies. "The prospect of having a key player or players under contract for short term deals compromises the ability to sustain a team over the long term.

"Cleveland's situation, to me, is slightly different," Jackson continued. "David Griffin probably had a high-confidence level that even though LeBron was signing a one-year deal with option, the Cavs would retain him and build the team around him because he's coming home. He'd already left once, went to another team. You don't come back home to leave again."

Paul declined to comment for this story. Griffin, the Cavs' general manager, also declined to comment, except to say that "it made perfect sense for James" to do what he did in 2014 because of the league's salary structure.

The truth is, James has never expressed anything other than a desire to remain in Cleveland long term, likely until his career ends, since he came back to the Cavs. But, in entering each of the last two offseasons (this one included), the Cavs had outlines of a contingency plan in the event James did leave again.

He's got a title to defend in Cleveland now, and the core of the team (minus him) is signed for several years, with tradable contracts in the event Griffin desires (perhaps at James' behest) to change the complexion of the organization at any point.

But James has had the Cavs on edge, if only slightly, since he came home three summers ago and signed a two-year, $42.2 million deal when a four-year, $88 million deal was available. In essence, only about $21 million of James' first contract was guaranteed, but he had a player's option he could exercise in the event of a catastrophic injury in 2014-15.

The collective bargaining agreement was designed so star players would have the most incentive financially to remain with their current teams, and if they choose to leave, then their most lucrative option is to sign a long-term deal.

James essentially left $46 million in guaranteed money on the table when he signed in 2014. Last summer, following Cleveland's loss to the Warriors in the Finals, he balked at an extra $48 million in guaranteed by signing another two-year deal worth up to $47 million.

James has opted out of that contract, and is now weighing whether to sign now for $27.5 million this season (with an option for the following year) or for four years and $137 million.

"One of the unintended consequences (of doing contracts like James) I feel on behalf of the players is the fact that they end up putting themselves in this position where they're taking enormous financial risk," NBA commissioner Adam Silver told cleveland.com. "The system is designed for guys to enter into long term contracts, so, and you can only get so much insurance. So one of the unintended consequences is they take risk beyond what we would like to see them take.

"The other thing is, the system is designed and incentivizes players to stay with the same teams," Silver said. "At the same time I respect free agency so if they make those decisions to leave, that's fine too. But as I said, I'd like to talk to the union about maybe modifying the system so there's a little bit more of an incentive to stay with your existing team."

The risk, though, especially for a star like James, is mostly on paper. James and, for instance, Durant, who signed a two-year, $54.2 million deal with the Warriors this summer (only one year is guaranteed), earn millions off the floor in endorsements. In James' case, he was the 11th-highest-earning celebrity in 2016, according to Forbes, earning more away from basketball than he does on the floor.

If anything should happen to a star player in the first year of his short contract, he can exercise his option for the following season.

Only in the margins for James is there real risk. Since he's become a free agent this summer, he's vacationed in Spain, Hawaii, and now Las Vegas. He went mountain biking in Spain. Had there been an injury, he wouldn't have had the security of a signed NBA contract.

J.R. Smith, the Cavs' sharpshooter who doesn't have near the star power of a James or Durant, opted out of the final year of his contract last summer to become a free agent. The roughly $5 million he made with the Cavs last season on his new deal was less than the $6.4 million option he declined.

So, you may say, he was burned by the gamble. But the contract he signed last summer was for one year with a player's option. He's a free agent again and is looking for $15 million per season, having proven his value on the championship-winning Cavs.

So how badly was he burned?

"It's not clear to me that there's a detriment at this point for the players," said Larry Coon, a salary cap expert for ESPN. "You are giving up a little bit of long-term security, and for some o the lesser players who don't have 10 years-service money, the lack of additional years on a contract could hurt. But it hasn't hurt anybody yet."

Whether or not there are changes to the CBA, this could be the last offseason for superstars like James to purposefully seek short-term deals. The salary cap is expected to go from $94 million this season to $102 million next, and then begin to level off. It becomes a far-less valuable proposition to kick the can down the road on short-term deals instead of jumping into a long-term, guaranteed contract.

In James' case, the best he could do signing a long-term deal next summer is approximately $157 million - which is one of the reasons he's weighing whether to sign long term now.

In the meantime, though, neither the Cavs nor the Warriors (and to a lesser extent, the Bulls with Wade and the Spurs with Gasol) can build concrete, long-term plans with 100 percent assurance that James or Durant will be there.

In the Warriors' case, two-time reigning MVP Stephen Curry will be a free agent next summer. They'll need to have the space to re-sign him and Durant. And for the Cavs and James, well, they've been down this road.

A couple times, now.

"For the players, the short-term deal is an implied threat," Coon said. "It's sending a message to the team that if they're not doing all they can, he can leave at any time."