17 New York Mets(J DeGrom) Vs Philadelphia Phillies (V Velasquez)

LoneStarPhan 2017-08-11 02:14:18 UTC #21

FINAL

Mets 10-13-1
Phils 0-4-0

A bleak night at CBP.

zambonir 2017-08-11 02:23:54 UTC #22

arpax 2017-08-11 02:24:08 UTC #23

We never seem to beat the Mets. Seems we own the Braves but the Mets to quote Pedro "are our daddy"

DurhamBull 2017-08-11 03:36:33 UTC #24

Good outing for Leiter at least.

De Grom is a tough opponent; Franzke pointed out that the next three pitchers the Phils will face have much larger ERAs with the scheduled Sunday pitcher having a ERA in the 8+ range. The Phils were just giving their bats a rest tonight.

LoneStarPhan 2017-08-11 03:59:57 UTC #25

I sure hope to see some exciting offense in the remaining games of this series. However, I have seen too many times where the Phillies make a guy with a high ERA look like Cy Young. I don't think that will be the case this weekend. I am expecting great things.

zambonir 2017-08-11 04:09:40 UTC #26

I know it's always a debate, but I'd take more games against DeGrom, the #1 pick is slipping away for sure.

Was an interesting decision, IMO, to let a rookie make his debut (and weaken the team defense) against a pitcher the Phillies never beat.

bkox 2017-08-11 05:05:53 UTC #27

I would agree with this IF the roster still had Hellickson and Kendrick and Neshek and Benoit etc on it. But for the Phillies to phail now means the cogs of the future have to perform poorly. If we could lose every night because Daniel Nava commits 16 errors a game and goes 0 for 5 every night with 5 rally killing double plays then sure. But I dont want the #1 pick because Hoskins hits 220 or Eichoff gives up 5 runs every start or whatever.

zambonir 2017-08-11 07:15:27 UTC #28

For sure, I'd like the kids to play well. But we don't really need the baseball gods to intervene for Vince Velasquez to get hurt, for nobody to hit DeGrom, and for the bullpen to show its seams. Just like in the minors, players can develop - and work through their issues - without winning. There's not gonna be any tanking, but we'll see it how it goes. Arguably playing Hoskins in LF and playing Alfaro more won't necessarily help the team in the short-term. If the Mets had better pitching this week I'd take it (that said, I enjoy watching the Mets suffer, both in the standings and financially. Even though I rooted for them in the postseasons!)

Anyway there's not much the Phillies can do to stop Chicago, I'm afraid. It would be disappointing if they picked 4th though, and that could happen too.

bkox 2017-08-11 13:07:00 UTC #29

Honestly I wish they would stop giving the top draft pick to the team with the worst record. Im not sure how else to base it but its ridiculous to basically reward front office ineptitude. You ran your 160M+ team into the ground.. lets reward you by giving you first choice in the draft and allow you to spend millions more then anyone else.

The five or ten worst teams should just be put into a pool with a each having an equal shot at spots 1 through 5 (or 10)

Lawman 2017-08-11 13:40:58 UTC #30

I was at the game last night, kids enjoyed, despite the lopsided loss. Had a nice family guys night out (my father, who is still living in Philly, my brother and nephew up from baltimore, my and my two boys, and my brother-in-law). $15 RF tickets from Groupon, so pricing wasn't too bad. We brought in sandwiches, snacks, and water, so kept the cost of food down.

Leiter was actually fun to watch, he was impressive. Garcia in the 9th was painful, however.

They really did make a mistake not putting the stadium in Center City/Waterfront location.

I was talking w/ someone in the row in front of me. He said he's only been to 1-2 games at the vet. Somehow, somewhere, I got old......I guess the Vet/CBP relationship is to me what Connie Mack/Vet was to my parents.

bkeich 2017-08-11 13:50:32 UTC #31

The fact that Hockey and Basketball have already figured this out is pretty embarrassing honestly. Not sure why Football and Baseball can't come up with it.

Baseball is a little less important as the draft spot is less important in Baseball than any of the other 3 majors North American sports.

Philsmania 2017-08-11 14:10:55 UTC #32

At least in Philadelphia they are. All-time since CBP opened, the Mets are an astonishing 71-53 (.572) at what is supposed to be our home field. Since 2012, their record has been a whopping 37-14 (.725). Last decade, it always seemed like Wright and Reyes turned games into batting practice here. Even after those two either left or faded, their dominance only increased.

http://ultimatemets.com/parks.php?ThisPark=49

zambonir 2017-08-11 19:05:11 UTC #33

A lottery wouldn't be a bad thing, but unlike hockey and basketball MLB doesn't have a salary cap or true revenue-sharing. So long as that's the case, and the league still wants to be in its historic smaller markets, they will continue to use the draft as a way to tip the scales, even though a lot of wealthy teams end up in the mix as well. Lots of things they could be tweaking when it comes to the market imbalances.

andyb 2017-08-11 19:24:32 UTC #34

I think this is key. There is just rarely a Griffey or Harper type of prospect that would make it worth tanking for. The changes MLB made to lower the bonus pools for the top 5 picks were probably the right response to potential tanking. I would also love it if they could get rid of the competitive balance picks (and replace them with more revenue sharing) while also letting teams trade picks or slots. If there is a Bryce Harper out there and some team wants to trade 3 top 100 prospects to get the right to draft him they should be able to.

LoneStarPhan 2017-08-11 20:19:35 UTC #35

I think some of us on message boards and some of the modern day journalists make more of the number one pick than the players and even the organization does. I doubt the players are thinking every loss just improves the draft position.

Philsmania 2017-08-11 20:57:14 UTC #36

Meanwhile, the White Sox finished up a sweep of the Astros last night.

andyb 2017-08-11 21:26:04 UTC #37

Another meanwhile is that Senzel homered twice last night and now has a 900+ OPS in AA. Perhaps the number one pick is not worth as much as people make it out to be.

allentown 2017-08-11 22:19:58 UTC #38

I'm sure they aren't thinking of that. They shouldn't think of that. The players should never try to tank. It would be silly for them to care about the 1.1 pick, since the guy is likely 4 years or more away and they are far from certain to still be on the Phillies at that time. The 1.1 may even be the guy who chases them out of their starting job.

allentown 2017-08-11 22:23:40 UTC #39

The value of the 1.1 varies drastically by year, based on the top prospect. The 1.1 also used to bring a bigger pile of cash than it does today, so a generic 1.1 will no longer be worth as much as it was when we drafted Moniak, et al. Senzel in no way shows that the 1.1 isn't worth as much as we think. If Senzel is significantly better than Moniak, it may show that our scouting department still isn't as good as we hoped. Senzel signed at a very reasonable bonus. If our scouts had liked him best, we certainly could have signed him and had $ to go after guys the next two rounds. That's the beauty of the 1.1: you get to sign the guy you value highest. From there, it's all up to the quality of your scouting -- and at least a little bit of luck.

zambonir 2017-08-11 22:43:35 UTC #40

God, of course the players don't care/know. Neither does the manager. But even MacPhail admitted he expected to get the #1 pick last year, and thought this year's team would be more in the 8-11 range.

The bonus pool still has some value. In a meaningless season, it's better than not to pick higher. Doesn't mean they have to try to lose, and they obviously haven't been doing that (even when they were losing).