The analogy to baseball budgeting should be clear. In every off-season, there are a few dozen players available for hire. In baseball's case, there are a few twists to the classic form of the problem. However, given the state of the team, a list of available players, a set of performance projections, and estimates of how much it would take to sign the players, you can work out the optimal set of signings for a budget of any given size. The value that the optimal solution represents would be the maximum number of expected wins that the team could reasonably anticipate given the amount of money management is willing to spend.
Ownership controls the size of the knapsack by setting the budget for payroll.
You can't sign Thomas because he's too expensive, and neither Jefferson nor Stanley add as much value as Vaughn does. Within the constraints of your budget, the roster size, and the market conditions, Mo would be the man you wanted to maximize your team's chances of making the playoffs. But basing decisions solely on who the good bargains are isn't likely to lead to a winning team, as it tips the scales towards the financial side of the ledger. Unless you are standing to profit from that money personally, I think you're better off treating your payroll budget as a constraint to be worked with rather than an alternate goal to be achieved. Copyright 1997-2001 by Keith Woolner.