"Best scope for the money" imputes that the scope is at least worth the money it cost or is worth more than the money it cost such as from a discounted price, etc. It doesn't necessarily mean inexpensive and could reflect any price point, depending upon the buyer who is making that decision. Which tends to make the term pretty much subjective, depending on one's budget. A lot of scopes could be deemed as a best scope for the money depending on how much you want to spend. A more useful measure of scopes for most people would perhaps be which scope is the best value for different price points or scope budgets.
If your disposable income is unlimited, the term is unnecessary for your budget. If you're on a more limited budget, you might be limited to $200 or less. A $200 scope won't be the equivalent of a top of the line Swarovski or have some expensive MilDot reticle but you can still get a basic 3x9 with a duplex reticle which will give adequate low light performance and cover 95% or more of the shooting situations somebody might experience. That's more scope than most of the famous historical hunters had and will easily cover anything up to 300 yards or more. Personally, I'm with NickWhittle on this one and think the Leupold VVX-Freedom in a 3x9x40 with a duplex reticle is very hard to beat.