Messier was supposed to lead the Canucks to Cups, not tear the team apart and lead them to nothing but lottery draft picks.
I think this is primary reason some Vancouver fans hate Messier so much, when they signed him they believed that was all it was going to take to win the cup. The truth of the matter is the Canucks had peaked in 94 when they lost the cup final and were on steady decline which continued until Messier's last year when they started to rise again.
1994 2nd in Pacific, Lose in Stanley Cup Finals.
1995 2nd in Pacific, Lost in Conference Semifinals
1996 3rd in Pacific, Lost in Conference Quarterfinals
1997 4th in Pacific, Did not qualify for playoffs
Messier signs
1998 7th in Pacific, Did not qualify
1999 4th in Northwest, Did not qualify
2000 3rd in Northwest, Did not qualify
Messier leaves
2001 3rd in Northwest, Lost in Conference Quarterfinals
The Canucks wanted Messier to duplicate what he did in New York, was this realistic considering his age? Probably not, but if thats your plan then you have to be committed to it even through the bumps in the road. Just adding Messier to a team on a decline doesn't make it a champion. In 1991 The year before Messier was traded to New York the Rangers finished second in their division and lost in the first round of the playoffs, only 3 players from that team remained the cup winning team 3 seasons later, the coach was also fired and Messier had a hand in all those changes. Players who were popular but either wouldn't or couldn't buy in to new team concept were moved and it payed off. Their was turmoil, the team missed the playoffs in 93 only to rebound with a Presidents trophy and Stanley Cup in 94.
Their is plenty of blame to go around in Vancouver and Messier regardless of injurys or players he played with, did not produce on the ice to the level that his contract would dictate. Beyond that most of the other blame Messier gets should be directed at ownership and the people above him.