The Vancouver Canucks could find themselves short on fan favourite buzzsaws.

Much has been made of the fact that this is the last year on Kiefer Sherwood’s absolute bargain of a current contract, and the likelihood that he departs as a free agent after what is pacing to be a 40-goal campaign. The lower the Canucks sink in the standings, the more likely they sell Sherwood as a rental at the deadline, and many fans are already girding themselves for that exit.

But could Conor Garland be on the way out, too? The latest rumours surrounding the team seem to be pointing in that direction.

It was Patrick Johnston of The Province who first brought this notion public. As he wrote this week:

“The veteran winger is playing well, as he always does, and did sign a six-year contract extension just this past summer. The Canucks love what he brings to the lineup every night. But if the task is to find younger players to add to the mix, dealing a guy like Garland may be unavoidable. A pair of league sources suggested the Canucks may already be considering such a move.”

There are a few different ways to break down this rumour so as to assess its general realism and likelihood, and we’ll work our way through those now.

First up, the practicality and the feasibility.

It is true that Garland is in the last year of his previous contract, which runs from 2021 to 2026 and carries a cap hit of $4.95 million. Most would agree that’s a contract the Canucks have already got their fair share of value from. This was Garland’s first big contract in the NHL, and when he signed it, his bargaining power was a little lower. Thus, the contract has no trade protection attached to it whatsoever.

Garland’s next contract, however, does. That six-year extension, which kicks in on July 1, 2026, carries a $6 million AAV and a full no-movement clause for the first three years (before converting to a 15-team NTC for the back-half of the deal).

Now, sometimes when a player signs an extension that includes trade protection, that protection is retroactively applied to the tail-end of their previous contract. But CanucksArmy’s Cory McQuhae received confirmation that this is not the case with Garland.

As it stands, Garland has absolutely no contractual trade protection for the next seven months. So, his upcoming NMC is only a moral barrier to a trade, not a practical one.

In terms of trade value, one could argue that this is Garland’s peak. The absence of a NMC, which allows for bids from all other NHL franchises, has something to do with that. The fact that Garland is 29-going-on-30 has something to do with that. But Garland is also having one of the best offensive campaigns of his career, despite dealing with multiple injuries already.

With five goals and 13 points in 18 games already, Garland has his highest goals-per-game (0.28), assists-per-game (0.44), and points-per-game (0.72) since his third season in Arizona, where he notched 39 points in a pandemic-shortened 49 games.

And he’s doing all that while being asked to shoulder the most responsibility he ever has been at both ends of the ice.

Johnston specifically mentioned that the Canucks would be looking to deal Garland for a young centre with top-six upside. When we look at the Canucks’ current stable of assets, Garland looks like one of the few pieces who could possibly return such a piece.

There is, perhaps, an ethical question when it comes to trading a player who just signed a long-term extension with the team. That’s perhaps especially true when the player in question is so enormously popular with so many teammates and fans. Such a move would obviously hurt the Canucks’ chances of mounting any sort of comeback this year, and the impact on team vibes would have to be considerable.

Much has been made of Garland’s closeness with captain Quinn Hughes – to the point that when Garland extended, many thought it was a good sign that Hughes would eventually do the same. Now that Garland is potentially on the trade block, what does that mean for Hughes?

Here, we’ve got to assume that if the Canucks are truly exploring a Garland trade, they’ve already more-or-less decided that they won’t be able to re-sign Hughes. And in that scenario, it’s pretty much got to be a rebuild of some sort, even if Jim Rutherford won’t call it by its name.

In other words, if Garland is traded, it’s almost certainly happening in conjunction with a Hughes trade. That way, the dressing room connections won’t really matter. And if a rebuild is on the way, there’s every chance Garland would welcome a trade – this isn’t what he signed up for when he signed that six-year deal.

Any Hughes trade would have to be focused on getting absolute maximum value. GM Patrik Allvin and Co. could sell Hughes for the very best pieces available, no matter what those pieces are, and aim a Garland trade at a more specific piece – namely, a young centre.

There is a reasonable question here about timing. In our opinion, a Garland trade would be such a clear signal that a Hughes trade is also coming, that we might be hesitant to make the Garland deal first. Like we said, any Hughes trade is about maximizing value, and that’s tougher to do if the entire league knows a trade is coming. Maybe the Canucks want to rip the big band-aid off first, and then spend their time shopping other veteran pieces, like Garland and Sherwood, thereafter.

But all that sequencing will come later. We’re not sure the Canucks are at this point quite yet, either in terms of giving up on Hughes extending, or on the 2025-26 season in general. But they may get there sooner rather than later, and if/when they do, the idea of a Garland trade will remain feasible, and maybe even downright likely.

Possible? Yes. Probable? Increasingly so.