It’s easy to become a little paranoid being a fan of the Vancouver Canucks. Sometimes, it seems like the refs are out to get you. Sometimes, it’s the rulebook itself. Sometimes, the rulebook changes in a way that seems to specifically target you (see: the cap recapture debacle). And sometimes, even the unwritten rules conspire against you.

It is no secret that the situation in Vancouver has become complicated as the 2025-26 season has progressed. We are now at a point where the Canucks are so far down the standings that President of Hockey Operations Jim Rutherford is openly talking about a “need to get younger” and a plan to trade away some veteran players.

But trading veterans is sometimes easier said than done – especially when those veterans have term.

Planning to trade the likes of Kiefer Sherwood, Evander Kane, and Teddy Blueger is accomplished easily enough. They’re all pending UFAs in their last year of contract, which makes for tidy business. The same is also true enough for those with limited term left, like Drew O’Connor, Tyler Myers, and, pause for dramatic effect, Quinn Hughes.

But the Canucks also have a number of veterans signed for much, much longer than that. Included in that number are two veterans with extensions that haven’t even begun yet.

Conor Garland and Thatcher Demko each signed extensions on July 1, 2025 – essentially, at the first moment they were able to. Garland signed a six-year deal at an average annual value (AAV) of $6 million. Demko signed for three years with an AAV of $8.5 million.

But neither extension kicks in until the 2026-27 season. For this year, Garland and Demko are on their previous contracts, with their old cap hits of $4.95 million and $5 million, respectively.

The interesting thing about these contracts is that both of them include full no-movement clauses. Garland’s NMC is for the first three years of his contract, after which it becomes a modified 15-team no-trade clause. Demko’s NMC is for the entire three years of his extension.

But neither player has any trade protection whatsoever in the present moment, under their current contracts.

That has led to the notion that trading either Garland or Demko, or both, before their NMCs take effect on July 1, 2026, is a distinct possibility. And from where we are sitting, it absolutely is. But any team that takes them on will be acquiring both them and their next contracts, which brings us to the topic of retention.

Anytime retention is discussed, there is mention of “retaining on a contract.” It stands to reason, then, that it should be possible to orchestrate a trade in which a team retains on a player’s current contract, but not on their already-signed extension. They are, after all, two separate contracts.

We’ve got some convenient illustrative examples on hand in Garland and Demko. Let’s say that a team was interested in acquiring Demko, but didn’t have the cap space to do so right now within the 2025-26 season. The idea here would be to retain, say, 50% of Demko’s current contract (bringing his 2025-26 cap hit down to just $2.5 million), but to not retain any of the extension. The acquiring team gets Demko for cheap this year, but is on the hook for the full $8.5 million for the next three seasons thereafter.

The same could go for Garland’s current deal.

Except…that’s not possible. Or, to be more accurate, the NHL does not currently consider that possible.

Believe it or not, this scenario is not covered in any rulebook, collective bargaining agreement or anything like that. It’s also never been done. But the NHL has let teams know that their interpretation of it is that any retention on any trade would apply to all contracts currently signed by that player. That means both the current contract and any extensions that take effect thereafter.

This has been reported on by multiple sources, most recently Chris Johnston of The Athletic. It’s an unwritten rule, but it’s a rule all the same.

What that means is if the Canucks were to trade Demko or Garland with retention, that retention would have to apply through to the end of their extensions. Meaning, if the Canucks retained 50% of Demko’s contract, they’d be retaining $2.5 million this year, and then $4.25 million from 2026 to 2029. If they retained 50% of Garland’s contract, they’d need to retain $2.475 million this year, then $3 million per year for the next six years.

That’s not really workable at all.

Now, because this is an unwritten rule, it’s always possible to ask the NHL for a reinterpretation. But let’s be real here: the odds of this Canucks franchise having a rule reinterpreted in their favour are lower than low.

So, does this reality impact the Canucks’ ability to trade Garland or Demko?

We think a potential Garland trade is largely unaffected by this. Any team trading for Garland now has to think of him as part of the long-term plan, and his next salary is barely an increase on his current one. It isn’t much of a stretch to think that a team could make room for him this year and in future years.

But this really does impact the Canucks’ ability to trade Demko, specifically. His jump in salary between contracts, from $5 million to $8.5 million, is larger. And teams just don’t budget a lot of cap space for extra goaltending, especially within a season.

We can look out at the league and see a number of teams that could use (a healthy) Demko within this 2025-26 season, but not many that could easily accommodate his full cap hit. That ability to acquire a 50% retained Demko right now, and then worry about carving out more cap space for his extension in the offseason, would be perfect for a lot of teams. And it would almost certainly equate to a larger return for the Canucks in the transaction.

But, alas, it’s not possible. If the Canucks use their remaining two retention slots as they attempt this roster reshuffle, they will almost definitely be used on other players with shorter terms of contract.