Well, aye, that changes things! Although, it is important to note that Considine isn't asking for a 50% increase in wages, just that 50% more than what the dons are offering. In reality what he's likely to be asking for here is less of a pay cut, and I hope he in turn makes this very clear. It's a well worded statement by Goodwin, but I feel it is just as underhanded as the leak by Considine's agent, and neither come out looking particularly good.
Of course previous performances aren't irrelevant, that's ridiculous, that's what every single player is signed on (apart from Mikey Devlin who has yet to play actual football). All his previous performances suggest he is good enough to challenge for a place in the Dons first team next season - that is the evidence, which I'd say is pretty much irrefutable. You could speculate that he might not be as good as he was prior to injury, but that isn't based on evidence that's just speculation (and given that you believe we should have held onto Brown to play in defence, I'd question your judgement there!). The only question left is whether offering two years is too much, which is what I based my previous argument on (and that still stands).
I could, and would. We already have younger and worse in our squad in the form of Bates (playing on the left) and McKenzie. As I said previously, 90% of the replacements over the years have ended up being worse than Considine and unless something has significantly changed, I'd expect that to continue. I'd say Charles Dunne would fall into the worse than Considine category for example. We replaced Logan with the infinitely worse Jack Gurr last season, and I see no evidence that we'll manage to do better than Considine based on our recruitment over the last decade. Our defence has been honking since he got injured this season and unless we're going to replace either Bates or Gallagher the new centre back is coming an as squad filler, and I'd say that's definitely where you'd want "better the devil you know".