Kimmo Timonen Injury: Updates on Flyers Defenseman's Status
UPDATE: Saturday, Feb. 16, at 6:40 p.m. ET by Ethan Grant
According to Tim Panaccio of Comcast Sportsnet in Philadelphia, Timonen's injury will not force him to miss any further time on the ice. The defenseman is in the lineup against the Montreal Canadiens on Saturday night:
Timonen is playing. So is Gustafsson— Tim Panaccio (@tpanotchCSN) February 16, 2013
---End of update---
Anthony SanFilippo of PhiladelphiaFlyers.com tweeted about Timonen's injury, only revealing that it was a lower-body injury:
Kimmo Timonen has a lower-body injury and will not return… #Flyers— Anthony SanFilippo (@AnthonySan37) February 16, 2013
Timonen has been one of the Flyers' more consistent players over the past six seasons, and this year has been no different. The 37-year-old has played 15 of the team's games. He's been so good this year, Philadelphia signed him to an extension earlier in February that locks up Timonen through the 2013-14 season (h/t Philadelphia Flyers).
At his age, no one expects Timonen to be the kind of offensive threat he's been in the past, but he's still notched two goals and seven assists so far this year.
The injury is a bit of a rarity for Timonen. Throughout his 14-year career, he's been very durable, only missing a few games here and there.
This is the exact kind of news the team doesn't want to hear.
Depending on the severity of the injury, it could really affect the Flyers' push to get back in the playoff picture. Despite coming in with quite a bit of hype, they have really struggled this year. The past couple of weeks in particular have been very hard. It's only recently that Philadelphia began to get things back on track.
While scoring has been Philadelphia's biggest issue, losing a player of Timonen's quality will only hurt the team. The Flyers rank 11th in the Eastern Conference in goals allowed and still have a negative goal differential.
That's not going to turn around with Timonen off the ice.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?