Let me just ask this:
Considering the topic of this thread, would any of you risk losing Hayward because you just arbitrarily want to pay ~$5-$10 million less per year to George Hill?
The main problem, aside from the fact that committing 20+ mil to a 31 year-old injury concern for 4 years is extremely risky & would be very restrictive financially in the future, is that committing the majority of the payroll to Hill, Hayward, & Gobert over the next four years would essentially cap the team's potential.
While that would certainly be a formidable core & there is always the possibility that Exum eventually develops or DL uncovers another gem in the draft, I don't see that as a championship caliber foundation.
If overpaying Hill is necessary to retain Hayward, I think the FO has to consider letting them both walk. Hayward is undoubtedly a championship caliber building block & will hopefully remain here long-term. He & Gobert are 2/3 of a potentially elite big 3 & losing him would essentially undo the majority of our rebuild.
But as frustrating as it would be to see this team take a significant step back just as they're beginning to realize their potential, it would be equally frustrating (at least for me) to watch them consistently come up short due to their financial inability to acquire that missing piece(s).
If Gobert wasn't locked up long-term, I might have a different opinion, but I would personally prefer to see the FO attempt to surround Gobert with young talent & hopefully (eventually) replace Hayward with a similar caliber player or (preferably) 2, rather than commit to a core unlikely to ever win a title.
Neither scenarios is ideal but IMO rebuilding around Gobert would give this franchise the best opportunity (or at least potential) to finally win a championship. But let's hope that's a decision that doesn't have to be made.
