Assuming you're referring to Sickels' rankings?He has 21 Twins prospects as B- or higher (including B-/C+ and C+/B-).So far, Sickels rated 7 orgs, and all 7 have more than 10 of these prospects.MIN leads with 21, KC has 18, ATL 14, CIN 13, LA & BOS 12, SEA 11.Sadly, I don't know if we'll get the other orgs as I'm not sure where Sickels will end up.
But I think the depth of the Twins prospects might be overstated a little.I don't think a few B- prospects will bring back much MLB talent.IMHO, of course.
Going from recollection, I'd say these numbers are fairly representative. Usually 2-3 teams with around 20 B- or better prospects, another tier of teams with about 15, most of the rest at about 10, with a couple of dogs down at 5ish. The A- prospects are important though, with maybe a dozen total.
Talent pipelines are going to be more variant, just like MLB talent these days. Some big tim "haves" and some woeful "have-nots" Watch out for the orgs with top quartile talent in both MLB and the minors.
I don't think the Twin's system's depth is overstated however, for two main reasons. First, compared to other systems, a lot of those prospects are really young and/or new, and there are a handful more high ceiling prospects at the lowest levels than you see in many systems too. I thought the system might have been over-rated in terms of quality last year, but after last year's domestic and international signings, I think it merits its ranking as a top 10 pipeline because of both quality and quantity or depth.
These assessments are incredibly fluid. All it takes is two of the likes of Javier, Urbina, Graterol, and Larnach to take off like Lewis and Kirilloff did to catapult an organization in these kind of rankings. KC, for example, probably had fewer than ten B- prospects the prior year, and now look.