JR Graham Traded To Yankees

[USAFChief]

My point is that it's not accurate to pin the failure to reach the playoffs on the performance of a single player.  My subsequent post was a follow up to indicate that it's still not accurate to do so because of a player's Rule 5 status.

Hell, last season alone, if one were to pin our failure to reach the playoffs on a single player, wouldn't Glen Perkins be a better choice to make than Graham?  How about Mauer?  Suzuki?  Hughes?  Santana (80 game suspension!)?  Nolasco?

 

I don't see anyone pinning the failure to reach the playoffs on the performance of a single player.  I see plenty of reasonable arguments questioning the front office's decision to pursue that playoff spot last year with a rule five pick using up one of 25 roster spots, in light of their recent decision he's not even worth a 40 man spot.

 

They effectively chose to compete for the playoffs with 24 players.  There might have been a reasonable explanation for that, if they highly valued Graham, but they obviously don't.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

My point is that it's not accurate to pin the failure to reach the playoffs on the performance of a single player.    My subsequent post was a follow up to indicate that it's still not accurate to do so because of a player's Rule 5 status. 

 

Hell, last season alone, if one were to pin our failure to reach the playoffs on a single player, wouldn't Glen Perkins be a better choice to make than Graham?    How about Mauer?    Suzuki?    Hughes?    Santana (80 game suspension!)?    Nolasco?

 

We had many players on our roster who contributed to our failure to reach the playoffs last season.    So did every single team that failed to reach the playoffs.    Guess what?    Even teams that reached the playoffs had middling performances from certain players - performances that mirrored the poor performances that we had.    Pinning failure to reach the playoffs on a single player is simply a poor gauge of why any given team failed to reach the playoffs.

 

Edit to add...

Let's build on the Rule 5 argument with a specific example.      (Statistically this isn't valid, but for our purposes here its an incredibly illustrative comparison.)   

 

In 2000, the Twins took Johan Santana in the Rule 5 draft.  That season he saw 30 games & 86 IP, and pitched to a 6.49 ERA.    His other pitching stats were similarly poor:   http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/santajo02.shtml.    The following season was definitely better, but still not great, when he logged exactly 1/2 as many games and IP.   

 

The team failed to reach the post season both of those years.    Do we pin that on Johan Santana, or on the team's decision to keep him on the roster despite the poor production?

 

Now, Rule 5 selections are always fraught with risk, but if they weren't valuable no team would ever make one.      And they are sometimes wildly successful.    For example, in addition to Santana,  other teams have successfully used Rule 5 to draft Josh Hamilton, Joakim Soria, and Jared Burton (the Reds, and later picked up and very successful with the Twins).

 

I think you are missing the point.

 

Obviously in any kind of backwards-looking, season-long analysis, it is impossible to blame a single event or player for the team falling short of a season goal. There are tons of players and events in a season, and we don't have a time machine.  No one is disputing that.  And it's further difficult to blame unexpected poor performances in a particular game from a particular player -- we may know a guy is a 3.00 ERA reliever, but we don't know when that one 3 run inning out of 9 will occur.

 

However, Graham was not just any "particular player" participating in normal reliever functions at an expected overall performance level.  He was a Rule 5 pick, which can have value, but in this particular case, did not appear to offer much if any present-day value, which became clearer as the summer wore on.  He was an interesting risk at the beginning of the season, when our likelihood of contention was low, but as our odds of contention climbed in May and remained high the rest of the season, and as Graham's performance and the team's trust in him waned, the calculus changed.  Graham's game-entering leverage index for the season was 0.48, which as far as I can tell was the lowest mark for any full-season reliever in all of MLB.  Rostering that kind of player all season put us at a disadvantage compared to the teams with whom we were competing.  How many close games did we lose when we were deploying relievers sub-optimally because we had Graham occupying a spot?  Other relievers forced to pitch longer, more frequently, and in less ideal match ups than a team with a fully usable pen? And then August 18th, when we apparently ran out of relievers and inserted him into the 4th highest reliever leverage appearance of the season.

 

Even if you wanted a mop-up man available for some games, permanently locking Graham into that role was much worse than being able to recall and demote one as needed.  And Graham's suspect performance likely restricted what situations he was even able to effectively "mop up" -- pitching fewer than 60 innings, well less than Swarzak's recent marks in that role.  Did other, better relievers have to pitch in borderline mop-up situations because Graham couldn't, which impacted their availability and effectiveness in other games?  And Graham was probably such a poor mop-up man that he wasn't considered a reasonable candidate for a spot start anymore on August 14th, which went to May instead, which left May unavailable for relief duty for some days after and forced us on August 18th to turn instead to Graham in a key spot...

 

Ugh.  Sorry for the rant.  Bad memories.  In any case, I hope this illustrates that while we'll never be able to say "conclusively" that Graham and his Rule 5 status prevented us from making the playoffs, it was one of the largest preventable factors that could have easily netted us a few additional wins.  And the fact that the one benefit from it -- the right to retain Graham and option him freely for 3 years -- we cast aside for virtually nothing after one month, it was not only a preventable factor, but one the team likely foresaw but failed to act on when it could have given us a positive benefit (much more positive than that open 40-man roster spot is today).

[magiklair]

Well shopped in the bargain bin. The bargain turned out to be not such a bargain.. Not a big surprise he didn't pan out based on his minor-league numbers.

 

I don't know why this we always have the shop in the bargain bin for players who may pan out. But it's the "Twins Way".

 

I wish they would to sell the team. Get some owners who want to win and spend more money. There were good relievers that went for 6 million a year. I don't think that is an absorbent amount of money in today's  day and age.

[Pitz]

 

 

I wish they would to sell the team. Get some owners who want to win and spend more money. There were good relievers that went for 6 million a year. I don't think that is an absorbent amount of money in today's  day and age.

 

http://www.howtoinstructions.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/100-Dollar-money-toilet-paper-roll.jpg

You're right, that doesn't look very absorbent. 

[deanlambrecht]

 

The frustration is that last year a couple games would have made a difference and keeping Graham on the 25 could have cost us those games.

 

 

My point is that it's not accurate to pin the failure to reach the playoffs on the performance of a single player.  My subsequent post was a follow up to indicate that it's still not accurate to do so because of a player's Rule 5 status.

Hell, last season alone, if one were to pin our failure to reach the playoffs on a single player, wouldn't Glen Perkins be a better choice to make than Graham?  How about Mauer?  Suzuki?  Hughes?  Santana (80 game suspension!)?  Nolasco?

 

I don't see anyone pinning the failure to reach the playoffs on the performance of a single player.  I see plenty of reasonable arguments questioning the front office's decision to pursue that playoff spot last year with a rule five pick using up one of 25 roster spots, in light of their recent decision he's not even worth a 40 man spot.

 

They effectively chose to compete for the playoffs with 24 players.  There might have been a reasonable explanation for that, if they highly valued Graham, but they obviously don't.

 

The post up top is the one to which I was responding.    I was making a general point that you can't blame a failure to reach the post season on one player or one Front Office decision.    I backed it up with information regarding how other Rule 25 players have been treated when their teams failed to make the post season.   

 

I think my point still stands.    Yes, keeping Graham on the roster could have made the difference.    So could have many other decisions and individual performances made the difference.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The post up top is the one to which I was responding.    I was making a general point that you can't blame a failure to reach the post season on one player or one Front Office decision.    I backed it up with information regarding how other Rule 25 players have been treated when their teams failed to make the post season.   

 

I think my point still stands.    Yes, keeping Graham on the roster could have made the difference.    So could have many other decisions and individual performances made the difference.

 

By that logic, you can't criticize any one move?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The post up top is the one to which I was responding.    I was making a general point that you can't blame a failure to reach the post season on one player or one Front Office decision.    I backed it up with information regarding how other Rule 25 players have been treated when their teams failed to make the post season.   

 

I think my point still stands.    Yes, keeping Graham on the roster could have made the difference.    So could have many other decisions and individual performances made the difference.

It's a distinction without a difference, as far as it relates to an internet baseball discussion.

[Mr. Brooks]

My point is that it's not accurate to pin the failure to reach the playoffs on the performance of a single player. My subsequent post was a follow up to indicate that it's still not accurate to do so because of a player's Rule 5 status.

 

Hell, last season alone, if one were to pin our failure to reach the playoffs on a single player, wouldn't Glen Perkins be a better choice to make than Graham? How about Mauer? Suzuki? Hughes? Santana (80 game suspension!)? Nolasco?

 

We had many players on our roster who contributed to our failure to reach the playoffs last season. So did every single team that failed to reach the playoffs. Guess what? Even teams that reached the playoffs had middling performances from certain players - performances that mirrored the poor performances that we had. Pinning failure to reach the playoffs on a single player is simply a poor gauge of why any given team failed to reach the playoffs.

 

Edit to add...

Let's build on the Rule 5 argument with a specific example. (Statistically this isn't valid, but for our purposes here its an incredibly illustrative comparison.)

 

In 2000, the Twins took Johan Santana in the Rule 5 draft. That season he saw 30 games & 86 IP, and pitched to a 6.49 ERA. His other pitching stats were similarly poor: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/santajo02.shtml. The following season was definitely better, but still not great, when he logged exactly 1/2 as many games and IP.

 

The team failed to reach the post season both of those years. Do we pin that on Johan Santana, or on the team's decision to keep him on the roster despite the poor production?

 

Now, Rule 5 selections are always fraught with risk, but if they weren't valuable no team would ever make one. And they are sometimes wildly successful. For example, in addition to Santana, other teams have successfully used Rule 5 to draft Josh Hamilton, Joakim Soria, and Jared Burton (the Reds, and later picked up and very successful with the Twins).

Did the Twins cut Johan a month into the following season?

I'm not ripping them carrying Graham for a season, on the contrary- I actually think that's the part they got right, I'm ripping them for subsequently cutting him so fast this year.

 

The hard part (stashing him on the 25) was over. Now they got to reap the benefits of that, and they effectively said, "you know that guy we carried on our roster for a full year, even though we knew he didn't belong yet on talent alone? Yeah we changed our minds about that guy, oops! Sorry Mollie!"

 

Graham was SUPPOSED to struggle last year. That is the whole reason he was available in the Rule V.

Therefore, I don't use his 2015 numbers against him, he was in over his head in mlb, just like Johan was his Rule V season.

That means they cut bait, after carrying him all last season as dead weight, protecting him all winter, over an insignificant 8 milb innings, and 1 mlb appearance!

[Mr. Brooks]

Carrying a rule V guy all season is an investment.

The Twins effectively loaned out money, and then tore up the contract before the first payment was due.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Carrying a rule V guy all season is an investment.
The Twins effectively loaned out money, and then tore up the contract before the first payment was due.

 

Either that or they recognized a bad return.  You're right that this was an investment, and with any investment, there's risk.  Graham was pretty bad in the majors.  He was pretty bad in AAA as well.  Likewise, we all have no clue about anything that may have happened behind the scenes. 

 

There are lots of reasons to bash the front office, I'm not sure this is one of them.  I'd be more upset about their lack of willingness to go out and get an impact reliever personally.  There was zero chance that Graham would be it, both then and now. 

[USAFChief]

Either that or they recognized a bad return. You're right that this was an investment, and with any investment, there's risk. Graham was pretty bad in the majors. He was pretty bad in AAA as well. Likewise, we all have no clue about anything that may have happened behind the scenes.

 

There are lots of reasons to bash the front office, I'm not sure this is one of them. I'd be more upset about their lack of willingness to go out and get an impact reliever personally. There was zero chance that Graham would be it, both then and now.

But that's the point...if there was zero chance he turns into an asset, why carry him all last year through a post season chase?

[ThejacKmp]

 

And 1 mop up appearance this year convinced them he can't be?

 

Right. Because he didn't throw any bullpens or anything in the minors and the Twins pitching coaches are a bunch of robots who have to depend on game data since they have no experience that might tell them if a pitcher has what it takes to contribute to a team with a crowded minor league bullpen pecking order.

[Boom Boom]

Obviously TR thought he could get a valuable player for free in Graham.

 

The mistake that was made, IMO, was prioritizing having that player who was available for free over having someone immediately better. Once it was clear in 2015 that the bullpen was inadequate, and that the Twins had a shot at the wild card, TR should have just given Graham back to Atlanta.

[Thrylos]

 

Did the Twins cut Johan a month into the following season?

 

It took them 2 seasons of horribleness in the pen to demote him to Edmonton where he was taught the changeup by Bobby Cuellar and the rest is history.

 

Comparing JR and Johan is kinda atopic methinks.

[Thrylos]

 

But that's the point...if there was zero chance he turns into an asset, why carry him all last year through a post season chase?

 

It goes beyond that.  Competitive teams that are in the post-season chase would rarely go after Rule 5 lottery tickets and will fill their roster with MLB-level players.   Ryan does not know how to do that.

[The Wise One]

 

But that's the point...if there was zero chance he turns into an asset, why carry him all last year through a post season chase?

If there was zero chance the Twins would not have selected him. If there was a 100% chance he would be a major league pitcher, he would not have been made available for the rule 5 draft.  Ball clubs have kept players for a year only to send them to the minors the next year. Gilmartin was only recently called up .  Teams sign 46 round picks. Almost zero chance for success. Still have to try. Graham did not work for the twins. It was still worth the shot.

[alarp33]

 

Right. Because he didn't throw any bullpens or anything in the minors and the Twins pitching coaches are a bunch of robots who have to depend on game data since they have no experience that might tell them if a pitcher has what it takes to contribute to a team with a crowded minor league bullpen pecking order.

 

Missing the point. He threw bullpens and the Twins pitching coaches saw him plenty last year. They had a crowded minor league bullpen pecking order last August as well, and also in November when they protected him on the 40 man 

[The Wise One]

 

It goes beyond that.  Competitive teams that are in the post-season chase would rarely go after Rule 5 lottery tickets and will fill their roster with MLB-level players.   Ryan does not know how to do that.

Delino  DeShields and the 2015 West Champs Texas say hello. Jon Daniels cashed a winning lottery ticket.

[ThejacKmp]

 

Missing the point. He threw bullpens and the Twins pitching coaches saw him plenty last year. They had a crowded minor league bullpen pecking order last August as well, and also in November when they protected him on the 40 man 

 

Pretending like we can look at his stats this season and call this some egregious mistake is where the point is missed. Stats are great and fun but the level of certainty people on this thread have about how horrible this decision is is pretty laughable. We don't know the whole story and are not professional baseball coaches - but that isn't stopping anyone from pontificating.

 

This is John Hicks 2.0. Let's freak out about a minor baseball move that means nothing in the grand scheme of things and which we couldn't possibly have all the information on or understand the thought process behind!

[alarp33]

 

Pretending like we can look at his stats this season and call this some egregious mistake is where the point is missed. Stats are great and fun but the level of certainty people on this thread have about how horrible this decision is is pretty laughable. We don't know the whole story and are not professional baseball coaches - but that isn't stopping anyone from pontificating.

 

This is John Hicks 2.0. Let's freak out about a minor baseball move that means nothing in the grand scheme of things and which we couldn't possibly have all the information on or understand the thought process behind!

 

Still missing the point.  Who is even talking about his stats? I for one could care less that he's not on the team anymore, I never thought he was worth keeping around, starting last June.  

 

Were there not professional baseball coaches watching him the entirety of 2015, you keep avoiding that pretty important tidbit.  

 

What does John Hicks have to do with it, last I checked he never had a 25man spot, let alone for an entire season. 

[alarp33]

A mistake was made, this is a fact.  In the 2015 evaluation that said this guy is worth rostering all year,  because we can't afford to give him back to Atlanta, and keeping him on 40 man last Winter. Or in early May 2016 that said this guy isn't worth a 40 man spot.  

 

I don't see how that statement is even debatable.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

To take on the investment analogy:

 

Making an investment in Rule 5 is pretty cheap.  All you need to get started is an open 40-man roster spot for a few months in the offseason (and $50k, of which you can later recover $25k, which is all loose change in MLB).  It's like buying a penny stock, or a cheap lotto ticket.  We likely had to sacrifice another penny stock at the time (Gilmartin, or another Rule 5 pick), but that modest level of player is generally an acceptable risk.

 

However, once the season starts, you have to increase your investment in that Rule 5 stock.  A 25-man roster spot is valuable, and becomes even more valuable if you are in contention through the summer months (i.e. 2015 Twins, and not 2013 Twins and Pressly, or 2000 Twins and Johan).  I'm not a finance guy, but this is a little like a company demanding a "cash call" on investors throughout the season.  And the Twins chose not to take a common route for avoiding some of those cash calls by failing to put Graham on the DL (except for the last 5 days before expanded September rosters).  And unlike some Rule 5 penny stocks, like Delino DeShields or even Gilmartin last year, Graham provided virtually zero present-day value to help offset the investment (and arguably negative benefit, considering the clear area of need -- bullpen -- where he occupied his spot).

 

The good news is, once that first season is out of the way, the "cash calls" basically stop.  You've got the stock, you can option it, stash it in the minors freely all for the original low price of the 40-man roster spot.  You might lose another penny stock (Zach Jones), you might have to pass on buying another similar penny stock again in the next Rule 5 draft, but those are still not great costs compared to what you just invested all season.  So great, the big investment is out of the way!  Graham's future costs are negligible now; even a modest gain in value is a net positive from this point in time.

 

Except one month into the second season, the Twins basically sold the stock for their original penny back, without even having another stock or lotto ticket ready to invest in.  Losing all the extra "cash calls" they invested in it, losing the opportunity to cheaply gain any more future value.

 

I get the concept of "cutting your losses" but we didn't do that here -- our "losses" with Graham were largely already done, having been accumulated last season and the past two winters.  We had practically nothing left to lose by keeping him on the 40-man for awhile longer, probably until November or so.

 

All told, while Graham will likely not amount to much or be missed from a performance standpoint, and it is generally a worthwhile risk to add or lose a Rule 5 pick, we quite possibly mismanaged the whole thing to make Graham one of the costliest Rule 5 picks in all of history.  Give the modest nature of Rule 5 value, it probably still doesn't rise to the level of, say, some of our MLB contract extensions, failures to acquire better catchers, relievers, etc., but it's definitely notable.

[Han Joelo]

I have no idea how this really works, but here is a stab:

 

Well-regarded Scout With Previous Success Identifying Diamonds In the Rough (Maybe even Johan!)  Let's call him "Creed":

 

"I really like this Graham kid.  If we can get him to stop picking his nose, we'll really have something.  He throws 95."

 

Terry Ryan:

 

"I don't know.  We'd have to risk losing Gilmartin.  What do you say, Gilmartin Guy?"

 

Gilmartin Guy (Slightly less respected, slightly less of a track record for finding diamonds.)  Let's call him "Dwight" :  

 

"I kind of like Gilmartin.  He's crafty."

 

TR:  "I'm told a few folks at Twins Daily really like hard-throwing guys and really hate crafty lefty's.  Take the nose picker.  I trust you, Creed.  If he's still picking his nose a year from now, it's your ass."

 

Graham, with the help of a hollowed out pine cone that he wears over his finger, makes some progress in the nose picking department.  His side sessions look great, though in-game results don't always match.  Still, the Twins finally take the gloves of and he gets traumatized by A-rod on August 18th at 7:42 p.m. CDT.  He secretly starts to pick his nose again.

 

Spring rolls around, and he has lost weight and is still lighting up radar guns.  In the midst of an apocalyptic start, he gets the call to Minnesota, sucks, and is seen by all brazenly picking his nose.  TR immediately cans him and some people with smartphones immediately determine Terry Ryan could have prevented World War II if he'd built a time machine, gone back to Milford, Iowa in 1922, and stopped Biff Haverstrom from saving a butterfly trapped in a puddle of spilt EZ-GLID universal gear lubricant that instead survived to flap its wings and precipitate a series of meteorological events that ultimately resulted in a light breeze knocking over a painting Adolf Hitler was working on, which caused him to give up his art career and take up dictating instead.

 

Meanwhile, nary a mention in these parts of how shrewd offseason acquisition Byung-Ho Park is a rookie of the year contender so far.  

 

[deanlambrecht]

 

By that logic, you can't criticize any one move?

That's not a remotely logical inference one can draw from my post.  Seriously, nowhere in my posts can you conclude that I've made that claim.

 

 

 

Either that or they recognized a bad return.  You're right that this was an investment, and with any investment, there's risk.  Graham was pretty bad in the majors.  He was pretty bad in AAA as well.  Likewise, we all have no clue about anything that may have happened behind the scenes. 

 

There are lots of reasons to bash the front office, I'm not sure this is one of them.  I'd be more upset about their lack of willingness to go out and get an impact reliever personally.  There was zero chance that Graham would be it, both then and now. 

This is quite right.

 

[deanlambrecht]

 

If there was zero chance the Twins would not have selected him. If there was a 100% chance he would be a major league pitcher, he would not have been made available for the rule 5 draft.  Ball clubs have kept players for a year only to send them to the minors the next year. Gilmartin was only recently called up .  Teams sign 46 round picks. Almost zero chance for success. Still have to try. Graham did not work for the twins. It was still worth the shot.

This is also quite right.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That's not a remotely logical inference one can draw from my post.  Seriously, nowhere in my posts can you conclude that I've made that claim.

 

This is what you said:

 

 

The post up top is the one to which I was responding.  I was making a general point that you can't blame a failure to reach the post season on one player or one Front Office decision...

Yes, keeping Graham on the roster could have made the difference.  So could have many other decisions and individual performances made the difference.

Sounds like you are saying that rostering Graham is no more or less deserving of criticism, in the context of what could have helped us reach the postseason, than a very large number of other decisions and performances that comprised our 2015 season.

 

It's quite clearly a false equivalence.  Unlike many of those decisions and performances from the 2015 season, the negative effects of rostering a Rule 5 pick who is providing zero/negative value at a position of need during a pennant race were very easy to predict and avoid, and indeed the Twins had the choice to avoid them literally every single day during the season.

[USAFChief]

.There was zero chance that Graham would be it, both then and now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is quite right.

 

 

If there was zero chance the Twins would not have selected him

 

 

This is also quite right.

 

 

In back to back posts, no less.

[Thrylos]

 

Delino  DeShields and the 2015 West Champs Texas say hello. Jon Daniels cashed a winning lottery ticket.

 

The same Delino DeShields who like Graham was optioned in AAA this season?

[deanlambrecht]

 

This is what you said:

Sounds like you are saying that rostering Graham is no more or less deserving of criticism, in the context of what could have helped us reach the postseason, than a very large number of other decisions and performances that comprised our 2015 season.

 

It's quite clearly a false equivalence.  Unlike many of those decisions and performances from the 2015 season, the negative effects of rostering a Rule 5 pick who is providing zero/negative value at a position of need during a pennant race were very easy to predict and avoid, and indeed the Twins had the choice to avoid them literally every single day during the season.

 

Let's lay it out:

 

My argument, and I quote, is this:   "I was making a general point that you can't blame a failure to reach the post season on one player or one Front Office decision..."

 

From that Mike Sixel drew the conclusion, and again I quote, that:   "By that logic, you can't criticize any one move?"

 

You are now claiming that Sixel's conclusion can be drawn logically from my argument?    Where have I stated that we cannot criticize any move?    I haven't.    But I will state that when one criticizes any move or series of moves, one must place that criticism within the appropriate context.

 

You then go on to say, and again I quote, that I am "saying that rostering Graham is no more or less deserving of criticism, in the context of what could have helped us reach the postseason, than a very large number of other decisions and performances that comprised our 2015 season."

 

You're close.    I'm almost saying that.    But not the "no more or less deserving" part of it.    The weight of that (or any) decision is certainly relative to other decisions; I have no argument with that. 

 

But the original argument to which I objected is that the Graham decision is the primary, if not the single, decision that kept us from the post season in 2015.    It is that argument that I wholeheartedly reject.    It gives 100% of the weight to the Graham decision.

 

And as I subsequently spelled out, and is quite readily apparent, there are, to use your words for the purpose of my argument, "a very large number of . . . decisions and performances that comprised our" failure to reach the 2015 post season.    Stashing Graham on the roster for the full season was but one of those decisions, relative in weight to some truly difficult to measure extent, comprising that failure.

 

 

[deanlambrecht]

 

.There was zero chance that Graham would be it, both then and now.

 

 

 

 

If there was zero chance the Twins would not have selected him

 

 

 

 

In back to back posts, no less.

Yes.    You should read the posts.    They are exactly consistent in stating that Graham didn't work out but, like many Rule 5 draftees, was basically an average bet.    The bet failed, as both posts acknowledge, which is what happens oftentimes when one rolls the dice.

 

 

That you've taken the single sentences out of context with the rest of the block quotes helps the argument that you've failed to make in the same way that removing context from what another argues always provides short-term help to an argument that ultimately fails.