Baseball America Top 30

I won't disagree that Mooney would be behind 'schedule' (particularly for a JC draftee) if he only goes up a level a year, but I'm also fine with players who are a little older than most; I don't believe that it is a damning factor in becoming a good player, but it's certainly very unusual.  And Mooney doesn't have the usual excuses (age, drafted/signed as a senior).  But what I do like about Mooney is a well-rounded group of tools and regular production from them, and that as he faced higher competition he played smarter.  He has contact issues, but still has high-level defense with competitive power and speed to pair with it.

And it's not unprecedented for older outfielders to skip to a higher level (like a 24 year old Jason Ellison; hardly a cherry-picking and not a great portender, but the Giants will push some players).  I do, however, hope they push Mooney past SJ instead of Connecticut.  SJ is a little too perfect for Mooney; the field is tailor-made for his offense, with the deep right-center corner for XBH and the wind pushing towards a shallow left-down-the-line, plus the park will let him excel defensively and he's a Bay Area native.  With his strongest weakness being mental toughness, sending him to a cold and foreboding Norwich might set him for a fall, but if he's got anything, he'll show it better in Double-A than in San Jose.  The higher levels are a time to challenge, not coddle.

And the major difference in Mooney and Tabata that makes it an irrelevant comparison isn't the experience just at the league, but prior experience; Tabata skipped a level, Mooney repeated a lower one and had three pro years under his belt.

And my disagreements with BA are in what I believe they value more: They value a player who can be a superstar; they all but admit in their prospect guides that they all but disregard players who could become league average players.  Again, they see a young age and see plenty of room for improvement; I see plenty of room for failure.  That's what I've gotten from the reports I've heard (no, I haven't seen him either) of Schoop.  Scouts think that Schoop can be 'fixed' to make his natural tools shine.  But from what I've heard, Schoop has poor batspeed which translates into little power potential, and he has speed that's just above average, and hasn't picked up the nuances of baserunning.  The latter might come with more experience, but until then he's got a maybe-bat with walks but little power or little speed.  The defense helps, but I'm the type that needs production to get excited; one thing I've learned from writing is that excitement from speculative hearsay is often just disappointment in waiting.

As for Tanner...well, a lot of what I've said about Schoop applies, although Tanner did produce right away and obvious hasn't repeated a level.  Again I like track record, that's me.  Tanner's stuff, however, isn't hardly Cain's or even Whitaker's.  That's not a knock, but it does bring up the question I brought up originally...why did Tanner relieve?  If the organization wasn't as high on Tanner as Cain because of where they started, then why did the Giants have Cain start regularly in his 'highly regulated appearances' but not have Tanner start once?  It's a long road, and Tanner hasn't even had a track to make a record on...yet.

Alert the ACLU.  Or the NAASTSM (National Association for the Advancement of Soft-Throwing Setup Men).

Then again, maybe he'll never get ahead simply because it's too darn easy to nickname him "Douche".

That's a mental leap most pitchers have trouble making.