Three players headline deep, talented draft pool
Five questions with Penguins Director of Amateur Scouting Jay Heinbuck:
Q: It has become clear that Nathan MacKinnon, Seth Jones and Jonathan Drouin are the top three players in the upcoming draft. Do they match up well with the past few draft classes?
A: Yes, I really think they do. I think MacKinnon, Jones and Drouin are definitely the people teams have in their top three, and they really are worthy. They didn't have the hype that (Ryan) Nugent-Hopkins and Taylor Hall had. I guess MacKinnon has gotten some hype over the years. But I think these three kids have the hockey world pretty excited — and for good reason.
Q: Which one goes first?
A: It really isn't clear cut right now. I hear lots of different opinions, and it's really all about what teams need. If you want a big, two-way defenseman, you can't go wrong with Seth Jones. If you want a No. 1 NHL center, you can't go wrong with MacKinnon. If you want a winger that can dazzle you with his skill, you can't go wrong with Drouin.
Q: How would you assess the upcoming draft?
A: It is a fairly deep one. I think there's going to be some good players farther down in the draft, and this is something we kind of knew a couple of years ago when we looked at this draft. You could tell that this was going to be a pretty good one.
Q: Have the Penguins changed anything in their philosophies regarding the draft and what kind of players they want?
A: We've got a certain criteria that I won't divulge. Probably a more stringent criteria specifically about the type of player we're looking for.
Q: How much do you look at a player's character?
A: Very much. I've got to give our regional scouts a lot of accolades. They do an in-depth job on that. It does mean an awful lot to us. We've taken guys off our list during the last few years because of question marks off the ice.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.