Not only was it last Feb, but it was based on 2006 stats, which means Hirsh and Buchholz also added to the numbers.
So tons has occured over the last 12 months to cause this to be way off.
I still find it tough to believe the Astros system was near the top 1/3 even prior to the Jennings trade. But then given I would have rated it about average and that is 16th or so, I guess it is possible some statistical rankings could make it look better.
But the draft last year, combined with some less than expected improvements in players as well as the mass trade off of most of the top talent, I would say that would plummet the rankings if (when) it is done this year.
But it also means that cumulatively speaking, many of the A ball guys and AA guys are still around that contributed to the ranking. One thing to remember what we're saying here: it's about the entire farm system. Realize that the system is compromised of developing A Ball players, High A Ball prospects, AA prospects and AAA prospect and a whole slew of roster filler guys. Guys in the system that struggled in 2006 while they were developing may now be better prospects. I give you Mitch Enierston for example. Let's also take a look at the 2006 roster filler guys for a second: JR House, Josh Bonifay, Mike Coolbaugh, Super Joe McEwing, et. al. All of those guys had great seasons at both AA and AAA. Prospects? Hardly. Guys who could help at the major league level... well, yes. So what I suspect many mean by "weak farm system" isn't really about the farm system at all.
It's really about "lack of young prospects" primarily because that is the focus in the minds of most fans and also groups that evaluate prospects, like Baseball America. We all then call it an evaluation of the entire system chock full of developing players. We get excited about those "prospect" guys because therein is the next Lance Berkman or Roy Oswalt or even Gunther Pence that everyone has annoited already. But "farm system"? I don't believe we truly understand the complexity of a "farm system" neither does many of the pundits to truly make such evaluations as "weak" or even "strong".
The idea is to bring up guys to the major league who will help you win. On occasion, you promote a young kid who is going to be the next superstar Roy Oswalt and hope to hell he pans out as such. See: Redding, Timmah. But entire systems should be evaluated by how they intend to develop kids who have a talent to play baseball at one skill level with the eye towards elevating them to the major league level type of player. Kid has a fastball... great... now teach him the changeup. In doing so, you may not see high prospects labels for those kids (Brad James, Tip Fairchild, et. al.), but major league contributors that could help your major league club win one day? Perhaps, if they develop. Who can really say they know that a kid will or will not develop simply because they don't carry a "prospect" tag on them?
If we say such limiting things about a system, guys like Chris Sampson would never be a major leaguer and he would never be allowed to help a team win like he can do given how hard he's worked to get there.