The Vancouver Canucks have agreed on a contract extension with forward Conor Garland, insider Rick Dhaliwal reports.The deal is reportedly worth $36 million over six years. With Garland entering the final year of his current contract, the Canucks have proactively avoided Garland hitting UFA status next summer.It's worth pointing out that the deal cannot be finalized until after July 1, as that's when Garland would be eligible to sign his extension.However, some concerns emerge regarding Conor Garland’s contract extension. So, here’s a look at three reasons why the Vancouver Canucks should not have signed Garland to a new contract extension.3 reasons why Canucks should not have extended Conor Garland#3 The Canucks could run into cap issuesThe Canucks have a little over $7 million this summer in cap space. That allotment must go toward replacing UFA Brock Boeser while rounding out the roster.Granted, Garland’s extension wouldn’t kick in until next season. But Garland’s extension might limit what the Canucks do this offseason. That situation could lead the Canucks to run into cap issues next season, especially when considering Quinn Hughes’ contract extension looming on the horizon.#2 The cap hit is too highConor Garland earned $4.95 million against the cap this past season. He responded by scoring 19 goals and adding 50 points. Those totals were in keeping with his career averages. However, Garland’s cap hit this past season was considered somewhat onerous for the type of production he brings to the table.Unless Garland can surpass the 20-goal mark and hit at least 60 points, a $6 million cap hit could be far too high for the Canucks to pay.But if Garland breaks past the 20-goal mark, potentially getting closer to 30, his cap hit could be more palatable.#1 The term is too longGarland is currently 29. He’ll be 30 by the time his extension kicks in ahead of the 2026-27 season. A six-year extension would take Garland to his age 36 season.That term could make Garland’s deal far too long, unless he can consistently maintain his production over the next six seasons. Otherwise, there’s the risk the deal could age badly.If Conor Garland’s production does decline, his contract could turn into an albatross for the Canucks. The deal could possibly become untradeable. It’s also worth considering if Garland’s extension will come with any no-movement or no-trade clauses.The inclusion of such provisions could make the deal even riskier, as it would limit what the Canucks could do if there’s ever the need to move Garland’s contract to clear cap space.