2/6 Kronwall Update

Posted by on . 8 comments

Ryan Doherty of The Hockeytown Blog has the latest. Basically, he’s feeling better, but not good enough, and is looking to return before the end of the month.  That’s not the best news, to be honest. I’m with George Malik on this:

… if this doesn’t cement the concept that the Wings need to acquire a depth defenceman or two, I don’t know what does

Filed under: Links

Tags: ,

Comments

  1. Scott H says:
    February 6, 2008 at 9:42 pm

    So let me get this straight….we are NOT looking for a solid forward now? I thought we were solid on D even without Kronwall. Seems to me we 've been missing a gritty "get another black eye or give one" forward like Cleary.

    Are we looking at Blake or Sundin?

    Reply
  2. Matt Saler says:
    February 7, 2008 at 2:39 am

    Scott,

    Most of the rumors going around had the Wings interested in Sundin. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean they actually are any more. The price is probably too high.

    As for a "get another black eye or give one" forward, don't we already have one in Johan Franzen? He was a beast in the playoffs last season and while he's been a bit of a disappointment during this season, we can hope he'll be one again this time around.

    To me, the Wings need an experienced, depth defenseman. They have all the tools they need in the forward department, if they would just work. They also have a solid defense, but the playoffs last year showed the impact an injury could have on the blueline. With Kronwall as injury prone as he is, I'd like to have a backup with more NHL games under his belt than Derek Meech or any of the young defensive prospects currently in Grand Rapids.

    Of course, my position is and will always be that thee Wings should only make a move if they can do it without trading roster player. The last thing they need is to disrupt the chemistry of that lockerroom.

    Reply
  3. HockeyTownTodd says:
    February 7, 2008 at 6:05 am

    I agree with you about adding depth to the defense, and no player exchange. If I was Holland, I would be looking for someone to take over Cheli's role as a mentor…another vet that will stay a Wing.

    Don't get me wrong here, I am not suggesting Cheli retire, my fear is that one game his heart will just explode while he is on the ice, like a race horse the just won't quit.

    Reply
  4. Megan says:
    February 7, 2008 at 6:36 am

    There were a lot of reasons we lost last spring, not the least of which being the fact that we were playing the Ducks. The loss of Kronwall and especially of Schneider had an impact. I can see wanting to protect against that kind of thing happening again. But I think our defense has enough veteran leadership. Lidstrom, Chelios, Rafalski. Meech is young, but that's not something to hold against him. He's played very well when called upon, showing his speed and smarts when handling the puck. There's a reason he's not down in GR. And as far as call ups go, Ericsson has been awesome this season. Yes, as a whole GR's defense has been…abysmal. But that's a team effort. Johnny has been great. I know this team has always been heavy on the veterans, light on the young guys. In the past, that has worked fine. But as we get further into the playoffs this year, I think it would be beneficial to the Wings to have a couple of young, good guys out there. We have great defensive prospects that deserve to make it to the NHL. If we keep signing veterans who are going to stay with Detroit, how is that ever going to happen? Especially when they seem to keep going forever (i.e. Chelios).

    Reply
  5. Matt Saler says:
    February 7, 2008 at 7:00 am

    Megan,

    Sure there are a lot of reasons they lost, but it's my opinion that the absence of Schneider and Kronwall during the Ducks series was the single biggest reason the Wings didn't advance to the Finals. With even one of those two in the lineup (and their accompanying grit), I don't believe the Ducks could have stopped the drive to the Finals, if not the Cup.

    I'm not holding Meech's age against him, I'm holding his experience against him. Perhaps between now and the playoffs Babcock will give him enough playing time to prepare him for a role in the playoffs, but to this point in the season, he's been a practice player. Not that it's his fault, of course, but when it comes to having a player ready to step in during the post-season, a veteran would be my choice.

    I agree that there is a reason he's not down in GR. It's because the team would lose him if he was waived for anything other than a conditioning stint. If the team had a choice, they'd probably send him down so he could get some playing time.

    As for call-ups, if any of the young defensemen are going to fill in, Meech should be the guy, as he's been holding the bag in Detroit all season.

    As for Todd's suggestion that the team find someone who can take a Chelios-like role, I'm in disagreement (though we agree on the no roster player exchange part). The Wings' young defensive logjam does not allow for anything other than a rental. I just want one that is low-priced and experienced. A Cory Cross acquisition, something like that. Or what that trade was supposed to be.

    Reply
  6. HockeyTownTodd says:
    February 7, 2008 at 10:56 am

    The catch 22 in your suggestion, Matt, is Babcock has no respect for experience. In the 2005-06 series against Edmonton (we lost) he left a lot of SC playoff experience in the press box in favor of the inexperienced ones. Woolley and Cross sat the entire series. Woolley had 89 SC playoff appearances, and Cross had 47.

    Reply
  7. Matt Saler says:
    February 7, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    Todd,

    My suggestion is that they acquire a guy as insurance against an injury, not that they trade for a player who would take the place of one of the six regulars.

    In the 2006 playoffs, the regular defense was made up of Lidstrom, Schneider, Lilja, Kronwall, Chelios, and Lebda. Of those six, the only "inexperienced ones" were Kronwall and Lebda. Kronwall's time had come and his spot on the roster was well-deserved. As for Lebda, he had, in my opinion, earned his spot over Woolley that season. That's debatable, of course. If I remember correctly, though, Woolley was injured at the time. If that's right, the point is moot.

    Cross was kind of an oddball transaction, but was never anything more than a depth trade. I'm not sure bringing him in against the young and speedy Oilers would have been such a great idea.

    I don't think it's that Babcock is set against experience, though that's certainly an easy conclusion to reach after watching the relationship between the coach and veterans like Yzerman and Shanahan. I don't think Babcock gets along with veterans that, in his view, rock the boat or don't toe the line as well as he would like. He apparently gets along fine with veterans like Chelios and Lidstrom.

    If there is a defenseman out there that they think will buy into the system and be willing to take a backseat role, I think they should consider making a trade. Again, I don't have much of any problem with the Wings' defense as it stands. My concern is what an injury or two could do to it. I'm not concerned about a new veteran getting playing time. In fact, I'd rather he didn't because it would mean an injury to a regular.

    Reply
  8. HockeyTownTodd says:
    February 7, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    You missed the point, going in with Kronwall and lebda was fine, my problem is when it didn't work he stayed with them instead of trying the experienced players. Woolley was not injured, and what wss the point of getting Cross before the trade deadline only to leave him in the press box. Babcock's other flaw is he sticks with what is not working against any team for the entire game. Expecting a different outcome every time he sends the same line out there with the instructions to stay with the same game plan..

    Reply

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>