Hill is on a flat contract that doesn't take anything away from our flexibility when we're going to need to resign West, Granger, PG and Lance. A front-loaded contract would be better given our cap space this season but flat contracts are always good.
Also, Hill got a $40M for 5 years deal whereas Conley got a $45M for 5 years deal. Conley is paid significantly more than Hill overall.
As far as the clearly superior part is concerned.
Hill is averaging 14.6 PPG, 5 APG, 4.4 RPG, 0.9 SPG and 0.4 BPG this season. He is shooting 41.9% from the field, 34.6% from deep and 86.1% from the line. He is also averaging 1.8 turnovers per game.
Mike Conley is averaging 13.3 PPG, 6.2 APG, 2.7 RPG, 2.4 SPG and 0.2 BPG this season. He is shooting 41.6% from the field, 38% from deep and 83.6% from the line. He is also averaging 2.6 turnovers per game.
So, let's compare the two. Hill is scoring more. Conley is assisting more. Hill is a better rebounder. Conley has a significant advantage in steals (although, this can be attributed on the Grizs' aggressive defense that tries to create a lot of turnovers in contract with our conservative approach in defense). Hill has a sizeable advantage in blocks. Hill is shooting slightly better from the field and from the line but Conley is shooting better from deep. Conley is more turnover prone than Hill.
I clearly remember a thread that appeared one week ago (or so) that compared the PGs that came out of Indiana (Hill, Conley and Teague). You will find several interesting facts there that point out that Hill was indeed the right player to choose.