Unless we're still a lottery team by the time he can opt out, I expect him to resign with the team. The question will be how much more he has progressed by then, how much of a raise he is looking for, & where our other wings (Burks, Hood, this year's draft pick if we go with a wing) are at in their development. If we are on the brink of becoming true contenders, I think Hayward would even be willing to take a little less $ to assure that we can retain all of our key members.
I agree that, in hindsight, it was a mistake to not sign Hayward to a deal similar to that which Favors received (if the rumors were true- although I seem to remember reports indicating that he was looking for slightly more than what DF received), but I understand why DL took the risk that he did. If I remember correctly, the Jazz were offering somewhere around 4/40 & when I heard that Favors had signed for 4/50, I felt like he was worth more than Hayward. I was undecided as to whether they should have gone that high, & was hoping that they would meet somewhere in the middle (4/44-46).
Unfortunately, that didn't happen, & Hayward went on to receive a max offer with an opt-out clause, after not having the type of season that you would expect to bring in that type of offer. DL certainly couldn't have anticipated that &, I expect, will handle these situations differently when it comes to future (& past) contract negotiations (ie Burks- wanted to retain him & did so by slightly overpaying in order to assure that he didn't receive a contract that they were uncomfortable matching- & Kanter- he wouldn't sign at a price that they felt was fair value so they traded him instead of allowing him to reach RFA).
I am (& I imagine DL is now too) a firm believer in not allowing others to dictate the terms of the contracts that you sign. Even after a down year from Hayward, we stated that we would still match any contract he received, which tells you that he was always in our future plans. Oh well, lesson learned; if you identify a player as a crucial part of your long-term plan, you retain him however necessary, even if that involves paying slightly more than you would like. The opt-out clause is worse than the paying him max $ part, especially when you figure it's only $3-4 mil more than what we could have paid him, as well as the timing of the opt-out, which comes just as we project to be truly contending.
