My Slack post, slightly expanded, so my opinion is immortalized here forever! For what it's worth...
Contracts are a thorny topic, especially involving young players (usually studs that are trying to be locked up max term for pennies on the dollar). My 2c is that - even though they take strides with every version - you have to let the game properly value them through their minimum and arb years because their "agents" don't/can't think that far ahead in the game as the future has always yet to occur.
What I have used very effectively elsewhere:
Multi-year extensions for controlled players (free agents of any kind excepted) may only be offered after 4 years of ML Service Time (another uses both 4yrs and 2 arb decisions, but 4 yrs is less of a jump in this case).
And a
1-year contract may be offered to arbitration eligible players to avoid the hearing when the arb window opens (off-season to arb date). In the latest version of OOTP I find you can sometimes cut a slightly better deal than the suggested arb on SOME players, so it's worth giving it a shot. Or, you can take them through arb.
With each good year, award, milestone, the players value increases. Only time allows that. JUST my opinion. Like I said, a thorny topic.
As GLBL is such an intimate league, there aren't 30 cutthroat GM's all looking for an "edge", so Steve is correct in suggesting this may not be a huge issue. Not suggesting that, BUT the clause above works regardless of league size when the objective is to maximize player value (which I know runs counter to the thoughts of each GM - just thinking of the players in this case). And, frankly, it might even be easier to remember than contract term limits pending age?
Merely a suggestion. I can certainly live with the current rule.
I find there is SO much talent coming up through this league, with only two minor league levels that I would probably resist signing a whole lot of players long term anyway, just churn them when a new stud comes along.