I suspect that would have been the case too.
That is, if what he'd opted for was to replace what those who left actually brought to the table. "Replacing" Lukaku in terms of what he was likely to contribute in this system, this season, would have been easy enough - but also pointless enough, I'd say.
If we had chosen to replace Lukaku, Greenwood would have to go on loan somewhere.
He needs and deserves to get at least the minutes he has been getting so far. That would not be happening if we had "replaced" Lukaku. Not replacing him was not a financial decision, it was a footballing one. One might argue that it was wrong, but then you are also - IMO - arguing for lesser gametime for Greenwood.
Who in my mind at least performed pretty darn good against Spurs at #9.
I am not concerned about not replacing Lukaku for that reason.
Sanchez was nothing but shite during his whole career her and did not need to be replaced to begin with. Just getting rid of. And even if one think he should have been, James has done that and some.
The midfield is another thing; something should have been done this summer already and must be done in January. As much as I appreciate the transfer strategy; focusing on primary targets and if they are not available: put faith in youth:
This went overkill last summer when it came to midfield.
Midfield is going to be a shitshow nxt summer, when Matic leaves and if Pogba leaves. We should not have put ourselves in a position where there is a fair chance that we have to rebuild the midfield squad and get maybe 3 midfielders in one window. Its too much in one window. Bad planning.