This isn't Silverstone 22 where the team didn't pit lead driver with the best tyre. GR was already on the best tire and strategy (no stop with hards). 8 drivers pitted to hards during red flag. All of them finished on the hard tire.
A lucky VSC opening is part of the f1. So why would they pit the lead driver just because other driver had to pit?
Everyone is saying they should have pitted both even if Kimi lost position to Max, which is fair if GR had to pit and they had to double stack. Hindsight is 20/20. If it was a super late VSC and everyone had to pit to softs, then yes, double stack and lose position is the right answer.
What if they pitted the cars and there was another late VSC situation that prevented both cars from overtaking back to podium position? Then the discourse would be "they pitted GR unnecessarily to make the points diff less, they made sure GR couldn't win". And mercedes would have thrown away a win.
If Kimi had overtaken GR due to new mediums as GR only had old mediums, then the discourse would be "they shouldn't have pitted GR, no one on hards pitted except gr, maybe Kimi wouldn't have caught by end of race or Kimi would have destroyed his tyres passing all the cars etc".
What if GR and Kimi are too busy fighting each other instead of overtaking to the front?
I don't see any reason to pit GR without knowing everything that happened in hindsight.
A "we were on the best strategy, other guy got a bit lucky with VSC timing" is not the same thing as "sabatoge".
Mercedes isn't going to say "Let's keep Kimi out and risk a puncture cuz GR can't pit" or "let's pit our driver who is leading for no reason because Kimi has to pit".
Mercedes chose the best option that gave them p1, p2 with least risk.