Insider's lazy Pirates criticism over Eugenio Suárez pursuit ignores key context

When the Pittsburgh Pirates failed to land Eugenio Suárez, the familiar refrain rushed in: small market, not aggressive enough, should’ve overpaid. It’s clean. It’s convenient. And in this case, it completely misses what actually decided Suárez’s free agency.

In his critique of the Pirates' offseason strategy on the Foul Territory podcast, MLB insider Ken Rosenthal said that “valuing players properly isn’t always going to get the job done” for the Pirates, and that teams like Pittsburgh can’t afford to “do it halfway."

The criticism sounds sharp, tough, and incisive. But it also happens to be the easiest, laziest take available when a small-market team doesn’t land a free agent.

The Pirates didn’t lose Suárez because they tried to win on efficiency. They lost him because he wanted to go home.

Suárez returning to the Cincinnati Reds wasn’t some late twist or leverage play — it was always the gravity well pulling this process. Familiar city. Familiar clubhouse. Familiar ballpark. A place where he had his best years, his longest relationships, and where the expectations fit exactly what he wanted from a one-year “prove it” deal. That context matters. A lot.

Multiple reports indicated the Pirates were right there financially — matching the AAV and even showing willingness to stretch beyond it. That’s not “halfway.” That’s being in the race until the player simply chose the place he already preferred.

Sometimes, free agency really is that simple. Not every loss is an indictment.

Pirates' failure to land Eugenio Suárez isn't as black-and-white as it seems

Rosenthal’s quote works better in the abstract than in this specific case. Yes, there are situations — Kyle Schwarber being the obvious example — where the Pirates likely needed to blow past their comfort zone to compensate for market realities. That criticism holds water.

But flattening the Suárez situation into the same bucket is lazy. There's a difference between losing a player because you won't cross a financial threshold and losing a player because you're competing against familiarity and personal comfort.

No reasonable overpay short of outright irresponsibility was going to outweigh Suárez’s desire to reunite with Cincinnati for a short-term reset. And at some point, throwing extra millions at a player who’s already made up his mind isn’t bold — it’s just bad process.

The idea that the Pirates are only allowed two modes — cheap or reckless — is a false binary that national commentary keeps falling back on. Smart teams still have to draw lines. Even small-market ones, and even desperate ones.

The Pirates can (and should) be criticized when they hide behind valuation as an excuse not to engage at all. But in this case, they did engage. They offered real money. They showed flexibility. They stayed in the mix until the decision stopped being about dollars.

Rosenthal’s broader point about half-measures has merit. This just wasn’t the example to prove it. Sometimes, a team doesn’t lose because it failed to act boldly. Sometimes, it loses because the player already knew where he wanted to be. And pretending otherwise might be the laziest take of all.