I think we as devoted prospect following fans overrate out prospects. As do some bloggers, who you can see are in love with prospect #13 "if he improves this element, he will be the steal of the system" type of thing.
But, I think it gets underrated by mainstream media looking to create a doom and gloom narrative. "There's just Cowan and Minten and nothing else" is what I hear a lot. That is also not true.
It's somewhere in between both extremes, maybe closer to the doom and gloom side but it isn't that bad.
The issue is, prospect coverage since the 2003 draft has created a mentality where if they aren't top 6/top 4 and almost point-per-game players, they are, well not a bust, but not really a useful player thus not a great prospect. A bit of a pissing match of who has the biggest stones.
If we were the San Jose Sharks and our top prospects were Cowan and Minten, ya there's a bit of a problem there. But this is a team who has had some incredible blue chippers graduate and become NHL stars in their 20s. While more blue chippers would be nice, it's not necessarily needed nor realistic based on being a contender.
Contributing players can still be considered good/useful prospects for this team based on where they are in their competitive era. The Mintens of the world have more use to this team than a rebuilding team void of talent, and that is great. Keep Minten and make proper use of him. This team is always searching for a good bottom 6 centre and using assets to acquire them. Well lookie here, there is one that can be homegrown!
McMann, Robertson, Holmberg. Not blue chips. Never were. Doesn't matter. Contributing. They are NHL players. Maybe limited, but they are NHL players. That is great. Keep churning those out.
I look at Cowan, Minten, Niemela, Grebyonkin, Tverberg, Hildeby, Chadwick and see players who could contribute to this team. I didn't list 13 darkhorses. But it's not dire either.
/rant