The top-heavy/low-depth label has been the description (knock) for the Met system for years now. Reyes, Wright, Kazmir, Milledge, and, to a lesser extent, Heilman, Huber and the recent college pitchers, have been in among the top half of those 'Top-100' lists over the last half-dozen years, but most find the back half of our Top-10s to be lacking. The good news, I suppose, is that we seem to be good at replacing the top level with new ones as the old ones "graduate" Following along with what Goldstein/BP has done so far (they're going team-by-team alphabetically): they've now rated 10 NL teams and come up with 15 "Excellent" prospects while finding, in true 'Bell Curve' fashion, even more "Very Good" (21), "Good" (30), and "Average" (didn't count 'em). Meanwhile in our system (small sample I know) they find 3, 1 & 1 plus a bunch in the 'Average' pile -- thus the 'Top-Heavy' label.