Roy on his ‘philosophical differences’ with Sakic, Avalanche

Getty
12 Comments

For quite some time when people wanted the Colorado Avalanche to make changes, it seemed like Joe Sakic and Patrick Roy were a package deal.

That … obviously wasn’t the case. At least not toward the end of the line.

The hockey world is still coming to grips with the startling, out-of-left field resignation of Roy as Avalanche head coach. It’s becoming clearer that Sakic and Roy didn’t see eye-to-eye on the direction of the team; the main thing in dispute is the bitterness between the two.

It sounds as though the Avalanche were only slightly less blindsided than the rest of the hockey world.

The Globe & Mail’s James Mirtle pointed out that the Denver Post mentioned Sakic wasn’t immediately available to comment because he is on vacation.

Moments before this post was going to go up, the Avalanche finally punched up this terse statement:

“Patrick informed me of his decision today,” said Avalanche executive vice president/general manager Joe Sakic. “We appreciate all he has done for our organization and wish him the best of luck in the future.”

“We will begin the search for a new head coach immediately,” continued Sakic.

There’s plenty of discussion regarding the relationship between GM Joe Sakic and his former teammate Roy, with every indication being that they had a falling out:

ESPN’s Pierre LeBrun caught up with Roy, providing more background on the situation. As you might expect, there’s a mixture of something approaching the truth:

Along with the usual “Don’t read too much into this, people who are reading a lot into this …”

Denver Post reporters Terry Frei and Mike Chambers filled in some of the blanks regarding specific “philosophical differences.”

The bottom line is that the Avalanche need to pick up the pieces. PHT will have more on this fascinating, bewildering development as today rolls on.

Aside: Does the “philosophical differences” line remind anyone else of those sad moments when bands break up? Roy might as well have cited creative differences instead.