They do have four people ranked in the top 32 on the community prospect list: Andy LaRoche, Scott Elbert, Clayton Kershaw and James Loney. In the same range (which, I realize, is arbitrarily cut off to artificially favor the Dodgers), the only other team to have as many prospects is TB (Delmon, Brignac, the highly-questionable Dukes, and Longoria). TB is widely considered one of the top two organizations in baseball, and furthermore most people would be more likely to drop Dukes out of the "superstar" range than any of the Dodger prospects.

As for organizational depth, I would say there are plenty of other high upside prospects to complement pure "depth": Jon Meloan, Blake DeWitt, Kyle Orr, Josh Bell, Preston Mattingly, Bryan Morris, Justin Orenduff, Xavier Paul, etc. (I won't sit here and tell you Chin Lung Hu and Tony Abreu are exciting prospects.)

Therefore, I disagree with your assessment of the Dodgers system. However, I also disagree with your entire premise: that organizational depth is useless. First off, I would say that just having a lot of good arms throughout an organization is a HUGE benefit, due to the amount of attrition in pitching prospects, the unpredictability of year-to-year performance, etc. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, I would say you MAJORLY underestimate how much it benefits a team to have their bench/bullpen consist of pre-arbitration players from within one's own organization rather than mediocre, overly-expensive veteran free agents. Yhency Brazoban and Jason Repko save the Dodgers cash that can be spent on something more worthwhile than, say, Scott Eyre and Mark DeRosa (who are costing the Cubs just about $8 million).

No offense, but organizations like the Twins, Indians, and A's don't spend astronomically, so their organizational depth means a great deal to those organizations, maybe moreso than to teams with large payrolls like the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Yankees, though the Dodgers and Yankees seem to be trying to instill youth movements in the near future, so even those 2-3 teams are valuing their organizational depth than they have in the recent past.

The A's don't have much quality organizational depth at this point, but I think the Twins and Indians do; I think organizational depth should count in organizational rankings.  After all, not every stud turns out as projected (look at such players like Mark Prior, Dewon Brazelton, Jeremy Guthrie, Bobby Brownlie, etc., all of them rated very highly when they were drafted and in their early years in their respective farm systems; there are many more examples that could be named as well.)  

I don't think an organization should get a Top 10 ranking if all they have is 2-3 potentially great players and virtually NOTHING else behind them (like KC - #4 is way too high for them; Top 15 perhaps, probably Top 20, but #4?!  No way in my opinion; you need more than Gordon, Butler, and Hochevar to boost them that much, as they had to be between #20-#30 for the last few years, I would think); based on trends and such, it would be reasonable to presume that of those 3 potentially great prospects, one will turn out to be as good or better than projected, one will turn out to be solid, but not be quite as good as projected, and one will turn out to be pretty much a bust.  Sometimes, an organization will do better than those odds, and 2 will be good to great, but I don't think you can just presume that 2 or all 3 of them will all turn out as projected.

Now, do you really think that an organization should get a Top 10 or even Top 5 ranking just because of 3 potentially great prospects and nothing or little else?  I don't think so.

Especially for those organizations that can't spend lavishly like the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Yankees, those C+ to B+ players can fill sizable holes on rosters like the Twins and Indians and allow them to contend for a WS Championship - they'd never be able to win one if they had to spend lavishly like the three aforementioned teams do.  

Without those C+ to B+ players filling holes on their rosters, the Twins and Indians would likely never be able to compete for a WS, which both have decent to good chances of doing over the next 5-10 years, mostly because they have strong, deep farm systems to go with solid, young, developing teams.  

Those two should definitely be Top 10 in the organizational rankings.  I think Law gave Minnesota a Top 10 rating, though I'm not sure on that, but not Cleveland, which I find to be erroneous, and not because I'm an Indians' fan - BA gave the Indians' farm system high marks for left-handed starting pitching depth and overall depth.  I can also say that the Indians have to be one of the deepest, if not the deepest, in terms of OF depth - not only is their ML OF crowded, but both their AAA and AA teams are stacked - Gutierrez, Choo, Francisco, and Snyder at AAA, with Crowe, Barton, Constanza, and Brown at AA.  I didn't even mention Drennen, who will likely be at High-A, nor another highly regarded, but little-known OF prospect, Roman Pena, who some compare to be very advanced for a HS prospect, like Drennen, and who will also likely be at High-A Kinston with Drennen.  

How is all that depth (starting pitching [Miller, Lofgren, the Lewises, Ness, Martin, etc.]; relief pitching [Sipp, Perez, Mujica, Wagner, Wright]; C [Toregas, McBride, Ramirez]; OF - [the ones I mentioned above]) not worthy of a Top 10 organizational ranking?  The more solid prospects you have, the more that will turn out to be at least solid, if not even above-average or stellar, ML players.  Your odds are much better of getting more of those players by having more quality prospects (i.e. depth) than by putting all your eggs into one basket of 3 great prospects, just like with stocks, because, chances are, not all 3 will live up to the hype, and sometimes, NONE of them live up to the hype.

So, respectfully, I disagree with your implication that organizational depth doesn't matter or is overrated; many small- and mid-market teams still rely heavily on their organizational depth to make Championship runs; it would be impossible for those teams to do so without that depth.  And, like I said, not every stud turns out, and NO farm system can produce stud after stud, no matter who is running the farm system or how many resources you have; there aren't that many studs out there to be had, certainly not enough to make a ML roster just from your farm system.  And like I said, not all organizations can lavishly spend like the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Yankees.  So rating organizations higher just on a few prospects who are considered great isn't the most accurate way to rate farm systems in my opinion.  That's why I think Neyer made the comment that few, if any, would argue KC is a Top 5 system - they don't have the depth behind those potentially 3 great prospects to warrant that high of a ranking.

Just my 5 cents.  :-)

Take care and have a great day!