I'm really not sure where this view is coming from.
He's devoid of offensive ability, but beyond that he's a decent hockey player. It's not like he's making turnovers in the defensive end every shift, not bringing intensity, not playing well defensively, or being a bad teammate.
He just isn't able to do ANYTHING offensively. That's not a good situation to be in - obviously - but I he's not as bad as he's being made out to be in this thread, and he's 22.
As a hockey player what matters is the bottom line.... How much do you impact your team's chance to win when you're on the ice.
For example Burns, he's giving a lot, but he's also creating a ton.
If you are not producing at all like Lazar, the only way you can be effective on the ice is to negate almost 100% of the offense of the opposing team.
To demonstrate my point, In the last two full NHL seasons, the Sens have been outscored at a 2:1 ratio when Lazar is on the ice and that's 5 on 5 (35% GF%). The impact Lazar has on the team is the worst of any regular player in the last two years that played for the Sens including Chris Neil who's at 40%.
So, that being said, when you are not producing at all, there is no way you can be an efficient hockey player. Bottom line is we are dominated every time Lazar is on the ice, outchanced, outshot, outplayed.
Being good defensively is a value added, but it's not relevant if you're not producing because players cannot stop every single scoring chance against. Lazar is simply a net negative on every aspect of the game.
