Yes I saw the solution, being limiting teams to signing tiers of prospects. The problem then becomes who defines the best prospect or where the tiers are laid out if there is no draft? For example, say one team has a prospect rated as the 3rd best prospect in a given year, another team has them rated as 13th, which tier do they fall under? Does the team rating then 3rd get to sign them on a lower tier because someone else had them rated 13th? Or does the 13th not get to sign them because someone else had them rated 3rd and they already used that slot?
I know it's not the idea itself that is important here and it's more about the theory, but I don't feel like this fixes anything other than making it harder for bad teams to get better and it most certainly wouldn't increase HRR imo.
It's based on pay, not some arbitrary ranking system.
Entirely arbitrary numbers, but here is an example
5M+ slot, 1 ELC.
4-5M slot, 2 ELC
3-4M slot, 2 ELC
1-3M slot, 5 ELC
<1M slot, unlimited
So now say you want the best guy turning 18. He's amazing. Problem is everyone wants him. Bidding war. You offer 4.5, becasue that's the slot you have free. "less desirable" team has their 5+ slot open and offer him 5.5 a year. You can't match because you spent your 5M+ slot 2 years ago and you can't do it again until that 3 year deal expires.
So you can either try and convince the player that the experience of playing for you is a million better, or you can trade a signing from 2years ago (assuming they don't have an NTC/NMC), or you can lose the player.
Of course some teams will have advantages, but that's the case with any free agency situation.
The big thing here is players aren't subject to ridiculous restrictions on their labour AND tanking is now a terrible non-starter option. Teams can't tank their way to an absurdly under-paid roster because it will make it really really hard to attract talent. Rebuilds become about timing your cap space and letting the roster cook for a bit until you have slots open to make a big play.