Clearly we remember and see this differently. I remember him improving a bit, but in most eyes not enough to clearly deserve a max contract and people even brought up the AK47 "albatross" contract that they did not want repeated on someone they were not confident would deserve it. People wondered if he played as well as he ever would because it was a contract year. There was definite uncertainty. I was 50/50 on us offering him something and having him look, but I doubt I would have offered him a max contract in DL's shoes. Up to that point, what had Hayward done to actually deserve the max? I don't buy Cy's idea that you pay on potential, so if someone might someday be max worthy, you max them now. That's a recipe for disaster.
As to the Hayward Hood comparison, lets look back to Hayward prior to the RFA. I chose Hayward's contract year even though his 3rd year would be a more fair comparison for Hood.
Hayward 13-14 stats
41%fg 30%3pt 45%2pt 81%ft 5.1rpg 5.2apg 1.4spg 0.5bpg 16.2ppg I believe his first time being the #1 option, and it was a tough adjustment and he was not super efficient.
Hood last year (injured throughout)
41%fg 37%3pt 44%2pt 78%ft 3.4rpg 1.6apg 0.6spt 0.2bpg 12.7ppg His prior year was better, possibly because of injury.
Hood was not the main option, but we saw what he could do the prior year in spot duty as being the on court option. The prior year he averaged 14.5ppg. He's not that far off that he doesn't deserve a max contract, eh @Cy?