i think we are starting to talk in cross purposes -- in a perfect world, certainly, take the player with the most skills for the least salary.
but i was not trying to evaluate players, but the cost of players.
to take your example: i am sure there are a couple of other managers who are guided by the principle that one should buy the most player one can for the money. it just so happens that there is a player on the market
(19373076) who is very similar to your first player: 133 skill points, $166K salary, age 29, and the owner is asking $1.4 million. Jason is asking $1K for his $244K player, one year older.
if we assume you are in the market for a top-notch guard, and the decision has come down to these two, which is the better choice? (this is actually a poor choice, for it would be Tobe M. after shelling out the cost of purchase, it would take some 18 seasons or so for the outlays to match.) an important part of "cost efficiency" is "cost of purchase" or "cost of training".