I've seen it bandied about that some would rather have Hill at 20 mill per year than Hayward for 30 mill per year. Now I feel that this is based off of two assumptions.
- Hill is just as good, or at least pretty close, as Hayward. That we could lose Hayward and be fine as long as we keep Hill. I am ok with this assumption. Hill has been on fire on both sides of the court and has produced well. If he can sustain this level of play throughout the season, then he would appear to be a legit #1 or #2 and therefore a worthy replacement.
- Hill could be had for 20 mill a year. This is where I feel that this idea falls apart. If Hill plays like he is currently playing, for the whole season, then he will be most likely a max or near max level player. If so, I can't see him signing for anything less than 25 mill a year. And that is the low side for a veteran max level player. If Hill is only worth 20 mill a year by the end of the season, then his play will have taken a significant dive, and therefore, he will not be an acceptable replacement for Hayward.