The market sets the price. The cap sheet sets the move.
A free agent has one market price and many different values, one per team, per scheme, per need. But value is not enough. A team over the cap cannot pay it, and a team against the second apron cannot get near it. The same player is a signing for one team, an exception for the next, and out of reach for the third. Free agency is where value meets the cap, and the cap usually wins.
The market has one number for him. You have your own.
The market price is what anyone would pay. Value to your team depends on your scheme and your needs, and the two rarely match. The engine reads both for every free agent and ranks the board by value per dollar for your roster, not by the size of the name. This is a composite board for a team that needs a creator.
The $34M star is the biggest name and the worst deal for you, because he duplicates what you have and costs above his value. The $14M creator is the best signing on the board, because he fills the need and is worth more to you than the market asks. The board is ranked by value per dollar, and the biggest name sits third.
Illustrative engine read on the real market-value vs team-value (value per dollar) board. Composite free agents, demonstration figures.
Same player. A signing here, an exception there, out of reach across the room.
Value tells you who you want. The cap tells you who you can have. The engine reads the same free agent through three cap situations, and what he becomes depends entirely on where the team sits.
Nothing about the player changed across the three panels. His value is identical everywhere. What changed is the cap sheet reading him, and that, not the value, decides whether he is a signing, a stretch, or a fantasy. Value meets the cap, and the cap usually wins.
Illustrative engine read on the real cap-position structure (room, exceptions, apron limits). Generic team situations, demonstration figures.
You are not paying this year's price. You are paying four.
A contract is a commitment across years, on a cap that moves and a player who ages. The engine draws the whole trajectory, what he is paid against what he is worth, year by year, so the deal that looks fine today is checked against the year it goes underwater. Same composite creator, a four-year offer.
The first two years are a bargain, the third breaks even, and by the fourth he is paid well above his declining value, the year the deal goes underwater. That does not kill the signing, but it names the cost before you sign it: a great deal now that you carry as dead weight later, unless the term is shorter. The market prices one year. The engine prices all four.
Illustrative engine read on the real multi-year cap trajectory (pay vs value across the term, cap rising, player aging). Composite player, demonstration figures.
Free agency looks like a bidding war and is really a math problem. The market fixes one price; your scheme sets a different value; and the cap decides whether you can act on the gap at all. The engine holds all three at once, ranks the board by what each player is worth to you per dollar, reads every target through your exact cap position, and carries the deal across its full term instead of its first year. The best free agent is not the biggest name, or even the best value. It is the best value you can actually afford, this year and the three after it.
Want the value. Afford the move.
Free Agency ranks the market by value per dollar, reads it through your cap sheet, and prices the whole term.