To me, Hayward was naturally a third-option player that should have been some sort of big point guard. He wanted to be the man, though, and worked his *** off to become it. In the proccess, management basically gave in, conceding to him the main offensive role, but last season was the only one in which he really blossomed in the aforementioned role. Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that he wasn't really trustworthy at crunch time. That was due, I think to him not having a top-notch athleticism nor an excellent shooting touch. Nevertheless, he was the designated main offensive player.
The point that I'm getting at is: Hayward was occupying a role that was a little too big for him, taking more shots than he should have. During the last three seasons his usage rate didn't change much, fluctuating between 25% and 27%, but only in the last one his true shooting percentage was very good, at 59.5%.
His absence will, I think, have both a negative and a positive impact: while some players' offensive efficency might be negatively affected by the increased attention from the defenses, others, that wheren't used as much on offense, might blossom. Hood comes to mind as one of could easily benefit from Hayward's absence. On the other hand, he struck me as somewhat soft during last season.
