For some, the question of how to properly rebuild the Vancouver Canucks is simple. Pick an age-based threshold, say 25 or 26, and try to trade everyone above that mark.

But such true ‘down-to-the-studs’ operations rarely actually occur, and it’s been made clear that this is not a path that these current Canucks plan to go down. They’ve said that they will rebuild. They’ve said they will not compromise or take shortcuts as they do so. They’ve said they will no longer make any moves that are not squarely aimed at long-term outcomes.

But they’ve also said that at least some veterans will be retained by the team, for the express purpose of aiding in the development of the impending youth movement. There’s plenty of logic in such an approach, even to those who might prefer a more thorough sell-off. But there are still difficult decisions to be made about who stays and who goes.

And among the more difficult questions to answer right now is what to do with Conor Garland.

If we’re just measuring by age, Garland plainly does not fit with the notion of a rebuild. He’s 29 now, and will turn 30 in March – just a couple of months before his six-year, $6 million AAV contract extension kicks in. A player signed from ages 30 through to 36 really does not align with any sort of youth movement.

But then, if we’re picking out veterans to provide insulation and mentorship, it’s hard to ignore Garland’s positive qualities.

In terms of insulation, Garland is an incredibly reliable and steady presence. He’s paced very near 50 points in each of his seasons in Vancouver, and this season is no different, despite a litany of minor injuries. He’s picked up more and more responsibility as he’s been a Canuck, and is now up to a career-high average of 19:39 a night in 2025-26. He’s always been good defensively, but has continued to develop into one of the top defensive wingers in the game as he’s aged. He’s one of the best penalty drawers out there.

Keep Garland on the roster with the incoming youngsters, and he’ll be able to help with timely scoring, covering gaps in defensive coverage, and on both special teams. As a frequent lightning rod, Garland will also serve to take plenty of heat away from the new stars. An opposing team can’t ‘go after’ one of the Canucks’ newer assets if they’re still spending all game trying to ‘Get Garland.’

As fans and media observers, we rarely get a glimpse into the dressing room, and so it’s difficult to comment on off-ice leadership. On the ice, however, it’s always been obvious that Garland is the kind of player who leads by example. That phrase about “dragging the team into the fight” probably gets overused these days, but it’s tough not to want to apply it to Garland each time he hits the ice. In terms of work ethic, in terms of never giving up on a play or game, in terms of playing bigger than his own natural size – any young player has plenty to learn from how Garland approaches the game of hockey on a night-in, night-out basis.

It’s not too difficult to extrapolate that into a reality where having Garland around for the rebuild results in more success for that rebuild, and stronger development for the young players involved in it.

That said, there are also plenty of arguments on the other side of the fence.

One wonders if Garland’s temperament is the right fit for a rebuild. Or, more specifically, the right fit for a lot of losing. Garland is a notoriously competitive individual, and few hate to lose as much as he does. It’s possible to imagine a scenario where, over the course of a couple of seasons in the basement, this becomes a problem and leads to him being too tough on teammates. It’s something that has happened in Vancouver in the past, at the very least.

But on the other side of that coin, there’s the constant danger that a rebuild leaves a team “too comfortable with losing,” and with that, it’s also easy to see how keeping Garland around could help prevent that.

His contract might be the bigger point in favour of moving him. A $6 million cap hit seems more than fair for Garland’s current services, especially with the cap continuing to go up. But as it approaches his mid-30s, there is always the possibility of a drop-off. Were the Canucks’ rebuild to take, say, four seasons to get the Canucks back to some level of competitiveness, and were Garland’s drop-off to also begin in four seasons, the timing could be bad. It could wind up being the case that the exact point at which Garland’s contract becomes onerous is also the exact point at which the rebuilt Canucks can no longer afford to waste cap space.

Moreover, there’s a real question of the wisdom of keeping a player whose best years will come when the games don’t matter, only to have them still be around in a lesser capacity when things become more meaningful.

Garland’s contract isn’t one the Canucks need to ‘get out of.’ But it could be one to ‘get ahead of.’

Then there is the potential trade return to consider. The fact of the matter is that, even with a rebuild declared, the Canucks are still frighteningly short on quality future assets. They don’t just need more picks and prospects, they need the kind of picks and prospects that can truly make a difference in the long-term – so we’re talking first round picks, and we’re talking A-class prospects.

The Canucks only have so many assets in the organization that can realistically be traded for pieces of that calibre. Kiefer Sherwood probably can as a rental. Filip Hronek would return a haul, but then he might be even more important on the insulation and mentorship front. Garland is probably the next-most-valuable veteran asset, and perhaps the only other one who could return those truly difference-making pieces in a trade.

In the end, we’re not sure we’ve reached a definitive conclusion here, and any actual decisions will have to be based on the qualities of offers received for Garland. We know that the Canucks are taking calls on anyone and everyone, and one has to assume a number of teams have called about Garland.

Keeping him a Canuck undoubtedly has value. But maybe that value ultimately gets outweighed by what Garland could bring in as he moved on to another team. For the moment being, it’s a little too close to call.