I agree about the Scots thing, I think that's important. However, not sure about the rest of your argument. We can clearly see when a player is destined for better things than the Dons, or that it's their intention to move on, as was the case with all those mentioned. We also operate within the constraints of our revenue, unless we're interested in becoming the next sevco. The latter is a fairly important thing to me, I'm not that comfortable even with our current level of expenditure to revenue. I actually don't understand how anyone can be a supporter of a team and not care about these things.
In terms of McRorie and Barron, I think the former is easily replaceable with the money suggested, and the latter would really benefit from staying another year and making the Clarkson role his own. However, Barron is a classic case of where your logic breaks down. It's clear that (at present) he doesn't want to sign a new deal and sees his future elsewhere. Our (AFC) feelings don't come into it. I don't think you'd find many Dons fans not delighted if he accepted a three year deal. Imagine he did though and next season he plays really well. We'd be in the Ferguson situation where it's blatantly obvious he needs to move on to further his career. We simply couldn't "build a team around him", because to do that would require players of his calibre with salaries to match. In other words, everything we do as a club with regards to players is only ever good while it lasts with every individual, all the while trying to incrementally improve the squad each time we make a transfer. Just the same as every other club in the world that doesn't just go out and buy two squads.