Yeah that's what he's saying. Definitely.
It's a logical conclusion of the argument his article is too lazy to even coherently make. What is he saying exactly?
If you actually read the article, it's total and utter garbage. The headline says the signing "spells trouble" for the Lookman and Vlasic, the tagline then says it's "bad news" for them. Uh Oh! But the article then doesn't even mention them in its entire first half.
When it finally does mention them, it's in passing and quickly moves on to criticise SA about playing both Rooney and Siggurdson, undermining his presumed argument that the transfer of Walcott is bad news (because even if the signing wasn't made, SA still wouldn't play the kids).
When the article eventually, in it's final 3 paragraphs, gets round to discussing its supposed topic, all it does is line up SA's defence of why you don't want to play kids week in week out. Which I don't completely agree with, but at least there's some thought gone into a side of a debate.
So basically the article, aside from a somewhat sensationalist headline and tagline, makes absolutely zero attempt to substantiate what it's meant to be about. Pretty shocking journalism all round in my opinion, although perhaps that's what you get when you just get fans writing articles instead of the meedja.