By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

Should this indeed be the end of an era, the truth, as always, will rest somewhere in the middle. The Celtics will be able to point to themselves as surely as they can LeBron James or those dastardly men in stripes. Certainly, they will point to Father Time.

In the interest of fairness, then, let us all agree on something: if the Celtics play as they did on Wednesday in an epic 115-111 overtime loss, there will be no shame in that. The Celtics can cut ties with Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett can retire - if that is what each chooses - and no one can say that the Celtics failed to meet expectations, that they cowered, that they quit.

As Globe columnist Bob Ryan so aptly put it weeks ago, the Celtics are, after all, in the fifth year of a three-year plan.

What happens from here is anybody's guess, the Celtics now facing the indisputable reality of needing to win the next two games against these Miami Heat, on Friday night and on Sunday at the TD Garden. Anything less would almost certainly spell their demise. What the Celtics now face is a list of challenges that seem insurmountable, presented here in no particular order of importance:

1. The officials. Everyone from Danny Ainge (following Game 2) to the most rabid Celtics fans are ranting about the latest NBA conspiracy, and no one can dispute that the league has (and always will have) a credibility problem with regard to the officiating. In basketball, complaints about the officiating go all the way back to the peach basket, though the Celtics in this series have their share of legitimate complaints.

Fact: the refs blew the call on Rajon Rondo's overtime drive. The rash of technical fouls with which the Celtics were hit in Game 1 was an embarrassment. At home this postseason, Miami has attempted an average of 32.4 free throws per game, a number that leads all teams in the NBA. And since the start of the 2001 playoffs, only three NBA players have attempted as many as 24 free throws in a game, two of them (LeBron James and Dwyane Wade) currently playing for the Heat. (The other is Dirk Nowitzki.)

Following Game 2, even Celtics coach Doc Rivers noted that Miami shot 47 free throws to the Celtics' 28. Of course, no one in Boston complained four years ago when the Celtics shot 38 free throws to the Los Angeles' Lakers' 10 in Game 2 of the NBA Finals, choosing instead to mock Lakers coach Phil Jackson, who whined about the fact that Leon Powe (Jackson called him Pow) had more free throw attempts (13) than the entire Lakers squad.

If you think the officiating is going to flip in Game 3, don't be so sure. In the NBA, star players get the star treatment at home and on the road. This postseason, among the 16 NBA playoffs teams, the Celtics rank 13th in average free throw attempts at home (20.7). On the road, the Heat rank fifth (24.6). That means Miami still could end up with more free throws.

2. Age and inconsistency. These go hand in hand for obvious reasons. The older you are, the harder is to fire up those engines on a regular basis. If you really want to examine it, the Celtics have not played two consecutive strong games this postseason. They have not won two consecutive games since Game 6 against Atlanta and Game 1 against Philadelphia. On Wednesday night, Kevin Garnett played 45 minutes, the most he has ever played in a Celtics uniform.

Ray Allen played rather well on Wednesday night, but can he put together two good games at this stage? And can Paul Pierce, who has fouled out in two of the last three games, come even remotely close to keeping up with younger, more athletic players like Andre Iguodala (of Philadelphia) and, of course, James?

As for Rajon Rondo, whose 53-minute, 44-point, 10-assist, eight-rebound performance in Game 2 will go down in history, there are questions there, too. Rondo certainly opened eyes on Wednesday, shooting from the outside with such deadly accuracy that ESPN Chris Broussard rightfully categorized his Game 2 performance as the NBA's "worst nightmare." If Rondo can start making jump shots (or even scoring) with any regularity in this series, the balance could shift considerably. But as we all know, Rondo's resume is littered with examples of erratic behavior, on the court and off.

The bottom line: the Celtics seemed to hit Miami with their best shot in Game 2. And lost.

3. Miami is the better team. Rondo was the best player on the floor in Game 2, but James and Dwyane Wade remain the two best players in the series. That was true last year, when Miami won in five games, and it is true now. Add in the play of Miami's role players and the Celtics' injuries - most notably to Avery Bradley - and the Celtics don't seem to have the front-end talent or the depth to beat the Heat.

Short of getting significant contributions from their bench players - particularly Mickael Pietrus - the Celtics cannot play much better (if at all) in Game 3. Their best chance may be for Miami to play worse. But since Miami fell behind the Indiana Pacers 2-1 in their second round series, James and Wade have played as if on a mission, ripping their way through the Celtics defense at critical parts of games and attacking Boston on the interior.

With regard to James in particular, the Celtics basically did everything right against him in Game 2. They held him to 7 of 20 shooting from the field and essentially forced him to beat them from the free throw line. (He missed four free throws in the final 15 minutes.) They kept the game tight and put pressure on him at the end, James missing a pair of potential game-winning shots as time expired.

Again, despite that, the Celtics lost.

All of which cannot help but make one wonder if time is now running out on them.

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

Maybe I'm old, or soft, or a combination of the two. But today, I feel compelled to give the Red Sox some love.

That was a darned good win last night.

And if these guys keep it up, I may actually start to like to them again.

Whether you feel the same way is entirely up to you, but the Red Sox pulled themselves above .500 for the first time this season Tuesday night with a victory over the Detroit Tigers that was, in a word, resolute. Pitted against all-world righthander Justin Verlander in the wake of yet more bad news regarding one of their better players (Dustin Pedroia), the Red Sox claimed a 6-3 win with a cast of characters that included Daniel Nava, Scott Podsednik, Nick Punto, Rich Hill, Vicente Padilla, Andrew Miller, Scott Atchison and the entire island of misfit toys.

Then again, maybe that's what is making this team so likeable at the moment. No preponderance of overpaid, underachieving veterans. No attitude. No excuses. Just a bunch of no-name retreads who are clinging to their careers behind a manager who was out of the major leagues for 10 years, dead and buried before the Red Sox resuscitated him.

"We're looking at it like we've got good momentum,'' left fielder Nava told reporters after delivering the game's key blow, a two-out, three-run double against the otherworldly Verlander in baseball's version of Bambi meets Godzilla. "We've got things going in the right direction. If you see the scoreboard, in the AL East things are still pretty tight. There's a lot of season left."

Indeed there is.

And if the Red Sox keep this up, as we've said before, there is every chance they will be far better in the final two months than they have been in the first two.

For now, following a September, offseason and spring that made Fenway Park as appealing as a swamp, let's give the Red Sox credit for one thing: they're hanging in there. For that matter, they've already demonstrated more resiliency and fight this year than they did in the final months of last season. On Opening Day, lest we forget, the Sox rallied from a ninth-inning deficit against the same Detroit Tigers only to see their bullpen undermine their lineup's efforts. The entire season this far has since been a succession of uphill climbs, the Red Sox fighting their opponents, themselves, the media and their fan base in attempt to reclaim some level of respectability.

Just look at the last week or so. Entering Tuesday night, counting Opening Day, the Sox were 0-6 this season when playing to get above the .500 mark. On Friday night, after feeling as he were squeezed by the home plate umpire, Jon Lester allowed a grand slam to Tampa Bay outfielder Matt Joyce. Then the Sox engaged in a war of words (and brushbacks) with a Tampa Bay Rays team that Sox manager Bobby Valentine has since described as "cocky." The Sox rallied for a last at-bat win on Saturday, blew a game on Sunday, then rebounded again on Memorial Day. Then they came out last night and defeated Verlander while Valentine held the heretofore disappointing Daniel Bard on a short leash.

The end result? The Sox of today are 25-24 in an American League that looks like a relative mass of mediocrity outside of the state of Texas, a commendable accomplishment given the distractions and issues that have surrounded them for the better part of, fittingly, the last nine months.

After all, the process of making this team endearing again has been a rather laborious process akin to giving birth.

So for a day, at least, let's be fair here. For all of the self-inflicted wounds the Sox have suffered over the last several months, they have endured their share of bad luck, too. Pedroia is only the latest example. Until Ryan Sweeney came off the disabled list, the Sox had both their starting and backup outfield units on the disabled list, from Carl Crawford, Jacoby Ellsbury and Ryan Kalish to Cody Ross, Sweeney, Darnell McDonald and Jason Repko. Kevin Youkilis missed time. Andrew Bailey hasn't pitched. Any team can only take so much, and one can only hope now that the Pedroia injury proves to be nothing overly serious.

Meanwhile, the handsomely-paid Red Sox starters continued to perform like a small-market bunch, putting undue pressure on the middle of the lineup.

Maybe there is a lesson in all of this, particularly following a 2011 season in which the Sox amassed talent more than they truly built a team. The critical performers on the club this year have ranged from Nava and Mike Aviles to Sweeney, Will Middlebrooks, Jarrod Saltalamacchia and Ross, no to mention a Frankenstein bullpen crew that looks as if it were assembled with various body parts. Know what all those guys have in common? Generally speaking, they're survivors or rookies, people jumping at the chance to play and compete. Add Felix Doubront to the mix and what you have is a group of players intent on proving themselves, something Red Sox players seemingly have not felt for a very long time.

To some degree, the veterans, too, are doing their part. Adrian Gonzalez has moved to right field with nary a whimper, playing right field with more than just respectability. (His baseball instincts are off the charts.) David Ortiz appears to have rededicated himself on many levels, producing both in the batter's box and the clubhouse, where he called the team meeting that seemingly awoke this club after Josh Beckett's cataclysmic meltdown on May 10.

Today, as a result, the Red Sox have a winning record for the first time this year, something for which they deserve some measure of credit. They are hardly out of the woods yet. But maybe, amid all the infighting and whining and snitch-searching, the Red Sox have taken the time to do some soul-searching en route to making the baseball season in Boston interesting again.

Remember what has brought you this point, boys.

Because talent was only a very small part of it.

The matchup between LeBron James and Paul Pierce is pivotal to the Eastern Conference finals. (Jim Davis / Globe Staff)

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

In the absence of Avery Bradley entering Game 1 of this series between the Celtics and Miami Heat, we worried mostly about the wounded Ray Allen, about his inability to match up with Miami Heat guard Dwyane Wade. Maybe it's time to move Paul Pierce to the top of the list.

Quite simply, he doesn't look like he can even come close to handling LeBron James anymore on either end of the court.

Even if you conceded the Pierce-James matchup entering the NBA Eastern Conference finals - and you should have - what happened at American Airlines Arena on Monday night should have you reevaluating exactly where the Celtics are positioned in what could be this era's equivalent to Custer's Last Stand. James outscored Pierce (32-12) and outrebounded him (13-2), all while making nine trips to the free throw line.

Pierce, on the other hand, did not attempt a single free throw for just the fifth time in 124 career playoff games. And the bottom line continued to tell an ugly story that suggests the James-Pierce duel is the biggest mismatch of the series:

James: +17.
Pierce: -16.

In James' case, that figure was best in the game. In Pierce's case, that number was the worst.

“You’re not going to take everything away from them,’’ Celtics coach Doc Rivers told reporters after the Celtics allowed Miami to shoot precisely 50 percent in each half. “They have two sensational players. But we gave them both tonight. We let [Dwyane] Wade, we let LeBron play in extreme comfort, and we gave the other guys everything they wanted as well.’’

So why are we picking on Pierce?

Because what has happened on Monday night merely continued a rather disturbing trend.

Fact: in the last six postseason games between these teams, the Heat are 5-1, including a perfect 4-0 on their home court. Pierce played well in the one Celtics victory during that span, that coming in Game 3 of last year's second-round series. Of course, that contest also came following three days off and did little to derail James or the Heat, who promptly won the next two games to close out the series.

Starting on Monday and working our way backwards, James has now scored 32, 33 and 35 points in the last three playoff games against the Celtics - all Miami wins - while ripping down 31 rebounds and shooting 36 of 70 from the field (.514), including 7 of 16 (.438) from 3-point distance. He has attempted 27 free throws.

Here's how Pierce has matched up in those games:

	Pts.	Reb	FG Pct.	3-Pct.	FTA	+/-
James	33.3	10.3	.514	.438	27	+38
Pierce	17.0	4.3	.400	.308	8	-42

Now here's how Pierce has matched up in the last five Miami postseason wins:

	Pts.	Reb	FG Pct.	3-Pct.	FTA	+/-
James	31.4	9.4	.509	.435	44	+49
Pierce	16.6	5.0	.413	.333	16	-59

Yikes.

Before anyone suggests that these numbers are at all skewed because they either represent a small sample or because they discount the Boston victory, you're missing the point. In the postseason, every game matters. And so long as James can outplay Pierce by a landslide in five of every six games, Miami will happily throw one game away.

We all know the reality here. Pierce is 34 and will turn 35 in October. James is 27. But for all that has been said and written about the Celtics and Heat in recent years, decidedly little attention has been paid to this matchup. Here in Boston, we have spent considerable time talking about the perceived advantages the Celtics have in Kevin Garnett and Rajon Rondo. Entering this particular series, we all acknowledged that the absence of Bradley could create a serious issue for the Celtics with regard to Wade.

We knew, too, that James is a better player than Pierce.

But if Pierce does not do at least a little more to make James' life difficult, the Heat will wipe the floor with the Celtics again and drain any potential drama from this series before anyone knows what happened.

Four years ago, as we all know, Pierce and James engaged in one of the great Game 7 duels in league history during the second round of the Eastern Conference playoffs. While James scored 45 points in an eventual 97-92 Celtics victory, Pierce answered with 41 and finished as a plus-10, the best number of any starter in the game. In many ways, James was every bit the force then that he is now, but Pierce was equipped to match him nearly blow for blow.

But now? Only heaven knows if Pierce has it in him to even remotely slow down LeBron - or whether the Celtics have any other options at their disposal. Allen, too, looked terribly overmatched on Monday night, and one cannot help but wonder whether Celtics coach Doc Rivers must consider some matchup changes before the teams play Game 2 on Wednesday night.

If Paul Pierce is incapable of doing a better job against LeBron James than he did on Monday night, after all, the Celtics don't stand a chance.

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

Finally and officially, the Miami Heat are eagerly standing by now. One game stands in the way. And for these Celtics, a final, potential run at glory dangles on a string.

So these are the stakes for the Celtics on Saturday night when they take to the TD Garden floor for Game 7 of their Eastern Conference semifinal series against the pesky Philadelphia 76ers: one last stand; one final, spirited run; one more chance to dethrone LeBron James, the self-proclaimed king who has faced the Celtics in the playoffs on three occasions in the last four years, the most recent a seeming dismantling of the Big Three during last year's second round.

Many of us thought that was the end for these Celtics. Many of us believed the window officially closed. Many of us wondered if some of the Celtics would return from an extended work stoppage at all, let alone reclaim even a hint of the form that made them championship threats from the fall of 2007 to the spring of 2010.

Will they? Have they? Can they?

Six weeks ago, of course, we thought we had our answers. Nine days after taking apart the Heat in a 91-72 victory on April 1 at the Garden, the Celtics went to Miami and shot better than 60 percent from the floor in a 115-107 victory, the indisputable signature win of this Celtics season. After the game in Boston, Miami spoke of the dimension that Celtics guard Avery Bradley added to the Boston lineup. After the game in Miami, James called the Celtics the best jump-shooting team in the league. The Celtics were back in the Heat's heads, particularly that of James, once again a legitimate obstacle in LeBron's never-ending quest for a title.

And as recently as nine days ago, following the Celtics' methodical dismantling of Philadelphia in Game 3 of these Eastern Conference semifinals, the Celtics were still right there.

“I think they’re looking at that other series a little bit, seeing (Miami’s) Chris Bosh being out," Sixers coach Doug Collins told reporters after Game 3. "I think they see a tremendous opportunity for themselves, and you could just see with their game tonight that this was a much different team than we saw in Boston.”

And then, just like that, the Eastern half of the basketball world flipped. James went for 40 points and 18 rebounds against the Indiana Pacers in Game 4, the first of three consecutive Miami wins to clinch the series. The Celtics blew an 18-point lead in Game 4 against Philadelphia and now find themselves in an improbable Game 7. Bosh might soon be on the way back. Bradley might be out for good.

Lest anyone forget, as esteemed Globe columnist Bob Ryan so concisely noted, these Celtics are now in Year Five of what was a three-year plan. In the fall of 2007 or in the fall of 2011, a championship this year was never, ever on the radar. Celtics vice president of basketball operations Danny Ainge himself has acknowledged this, albeit through trade talks for any one of a number of Celtics players, including Rajon Rondo.

Nonetheless, that is hardly the point. After hitting rock bottom in a 119-107 loss at Oklahoma City on February 22, the Celtics had dropped 7 of 8 and plummeted to 15-17 overall. Many of us (if not all) were calling for Ainge to blow it up. The Celtics suddenly and unexpectedly went 24-10 over their final 34 games, thrusting themselves into the middle of the eastern Conference playoff pack.

Then Orlando Magic center Dwight Howard went down for the season. Then Chicago Bulls guard Derrick Rose did, too. Then the Celtics drew Atlanta in the first round and Philadelphia in the second, all while Bosh suffered an abdominal strain that dealt Miami a blow, too.

And then we all saw it: the Celtics could get to the Finals.

That James awaits the Celtics now is obviously fitting. In 2008, during the inaugural season of this Celtics renaissance, the Celtics dispatched the king in Game 7 of a second-round series at the Garden. Two years later, in his final game as a member of the Cleveland Cavaliers, James essentially quit in far more unceremonious exit. James' inability to get past the Celtics is what ultimately drove him to Miami, James (with Dwyane Wade) finally blowing past the Celtics in five games last spring.

James and the Heat ultimately lost in the Finals to the Dallas Mavericks, of course, but make no mistake: no team has thwarted his quest for a championship more in recent years than the Celtics. Now Boston has the chance to thwart him again. The moment Rose went down, the Celtics became the last real hurdle for James to clear on the way to the finals, a fact that should have given these Celtics any incentive they needed entering what is likely their last postseason together.

A championship? That remains unlikely.

But once again, the Celtics can still prevent LeBron James from getting one.

They just have to beat the Philadelphia 76ers first.

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

If the Red Sox are feeling good about themselves in the wake of a stretch during which they have gone 10-3, that is certainly a good thing. If the Red Sox are more unified now than they were at the beginning of the season, that is a good thing, too. And if the Red Sox are using the media and criticism as a rallying cause, that is also excellent news.

But for a team that has not had a winning record at any point this season, the Red Sox on Wednesday seemed a touch beyond their skis.

"[If] we play like this the rest of the season," manager Bobby Valentine said following a 6-5 victory over the Baltimore Orioles, "we're going to win the championship."

At the risk of sounding like Jim Mora ... championship? Championship? Let's slow down here. The Red Sox still have issues. Even with their latest surge, the Sox still rank 13th overall in the American League in ERA. While their relievers have crept up to a far more decent ninth -- still below average -- the starters, too, rank 13th. And that all comes after a 2011 season in which the Sox finished a disappointing ninth in ERA.

The point? The pitching on this team, particularly in the starting rotation, remains inconsistent. And unless or until that changes over an extended period of time, the Red Sox are likely to continue along the pattern that has thus far produced stretches during which they have gone 4-10, 7-1, 1-8 and now 10-3.

Add it all up and what you get is 22-22 after 44 games, a perfectly mediocre record that puts them right there with the Chicago White Sox, smack dab in the middle of the 30 major league teams.

Think Robin Ventura is talking about a championship in Chicago?

* Adrian Gonzalez is a three-time Gold Glove Award winner who won the honor in the American League as recently as last season. He has some reason to gripe about being moved to the outfield, temporarily or not. Instead, Gonzalez has gone out and demonstrated tremendous instincts in right field, which is a testament to his natural baseball ability.

Not every player, no matter how accomplished, would so willingly do what Gonzalez is doing now. As much as many of us think of Derek Jeter, he was never going to give up shortstop for Alex Rodriguez or anyone else. Jeter is nonetheless regarded as one of the best team players in baseball, the kind of guy who always greets teammates at the top step of the dugout, the way David Ortiz does.

Interestingly, during the same period of time where Gonzalez has accepted a move to the outfield, Kelly Shoppach went into manager Bobby Valentine's office on Tuesday and complained about a shortage of playing time. Was he kidding with this? Someone needs to remind Shoppach that he was brought here to be a backup catcher for Jarrod Saltalamacchia, who continues to make strides as a player. If Shoppach is unhappy with that, the Sox should release him and hand the job to Ryan Lavarnway.

End of story.

* Speaking of Ortiz, let's say this all again: given his performance and tenure, he was the right man to speak up and call a team meeting. Somebody in the Red Sox clubhouse should have done so a long time ago -- we're going back to last September now -- and maybe someone did. Ortiz has always been one of the most approachable and well-liked players by his teammates, but he has never run the clubhouse with an iron fist, the way some other players might have.

If he opted to do so now, amen.

That said, when Ortiz said he is not respected by the front office, he's got it backwards. If he were not David Ortiz, the Red Sox might very well have cut him loose after the 2010 season. Theo Epstein explained the decision to retain Ortiz at that time by saying Ortiz was very important to "ownership," which certainly suggests that baseball operations was prepared to cut him loose and move on.

Since that time, the Red Sox have committed $27 million (including this season) in guaranteed salary on Ortiz. Last fall, he could have declined arbitration and hit the open market, but he chose not to. Know why? Because nobody would have given him more guaranteed money than the Red Sox did by agreeing to arbitration and, eventually, a one-year, $14.5 million settlement.

Every player ages. Eventually, they almost all end up on a series of one-year contracts. Before Ortiz says that he has been disrespected, he should consider that men like Pedro Martinez, Trot Nixon, Derek Lowe, Johnny Damon and, most recently, Jonathan Papelbon have been cut loose by the Red Sox with no real attempt to retain them.

With Ortiz, that has not happened.

* Given the rash of injuries the Red Sox have suffered in the outfield, the Red Sox should continue to find ways to get Gonzalez, Kevin Youkilis and Will Middlebrooks in the lineup at the same time. If that means putting someone other than Gonzalez in the outfield, so be it. That is especially true in left field at Fenway Park, where there has been a long history of substandard defensive play.

Manny Ramirez, Mike Greenwell and Jim Rice all played left field at Fenway on a full-time basis and none of them were especially good outfielders. Heck, even Wilfredo Cordero played left field. It's just not that tough.

On the road, the Sox will need to be more careful about picking their spots.

* As we all know, Daniel Bard has strikeout stuff. So can someone please explain why Bard has so completely gone away from it? If Bard were using two-seam fastballs (or sinkers) to augment his power arsenal, that would be one thing. If were showing some propensity for pitch efficiency, that would be another. But Bard hasn't been getting strikeouts or quick outs, which really has more to do with his approach than his stuff.

Unbelievable. Major league evaluators are obsessed with velocity and power. Bard has both, but he's not using them. That makes no sense.

* Alfredo Aceves is still far more suited to be a middle reliever or set-up man, but has made one heck of a comeback in the last month. Since allowing five runs in the Red Sox' cataclysmic 15-9 loss to the Yankees on April 21, Aceves has brought his ERA from 24.00 to 4.15. In his last 15 outings, he is 8 for 8 in save opportunities while posting a 0.96 ERA with 19 strikeouts and five walks in 18.2 innings.

Last September, Aceves showed us all that he has guts.

Now, he's showing us again.

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

Mock the Miami Heat, if you choose, but the Celtics today are in the very same boat. They are wounded. They are tied through four games in their second-round playoff series. They have two of the remaining three games at home.

For now, the most obvious difference is that the Celtics are playing an inferior team in the Philadelphia 76ers, who overcame an 18-point third-quarter deficit on Friday night to hand the Celtics a devastating loss. The Celtics scored the first 14 points of the game. The Celtics appeared in complete control. And yet the Celtics now find themselves in a best-of-3 affair after a collapse that was nothing short of catastrophic.

Can the Celtics still win this series? Of course. Will they? Probably. But any thoughts of another trip to the NBA Finals took a major hit over the weekend, Boston's potential supremacy in the Eastern Conference now very much in doubt.

Here's the problem with the Celtics: they fall asleep too much. At least they have through the early rounds during these playoffs. In 10 postseason games thus far, the Celtics have two performances we can classify as complete, the others all falling into a pile we might classify as lackluster or ugly or downright poor.

So are the Celtics just sprinters, more comfortable playing in short bursts? Is this the sign of age? Or are the Celtics merely the kind of team that plays down to the level of their opponents, sometimes oscillating between good and bad in a mere matter of seconds?

Regardless, Friday's Game 4 loss to the Sixers was inexcusable for a team possessing the experience the Celtics do, particularly when we examine the specifics. The Celtics led by 17 when Kevin Garnett and Elton Brand drew double technical fouls near midcourt. Garnett subsequently missed his next three shots - none of them near the basket - and the Sixers were within four by the end of the quarter.

So, is that all it takes for the Celtics to be thrown off their game, for someone to stand up to them and push them around a little? Had Miami been the team that blew an 18-point lead with the chance to take a commanding 3-1 series lead with Game 5 scheduled on its home court, we would be talking today about the Heat's inability to close, about Miami's lack of killer instinct, about Miami's questionable skill to close.

But because these Celtics have won a championship - four years ago, albeit - we just chalk it up to a lapse.

Fact: the Celtics of 2007-08 never would have lost Game 4. Not in a million years. Those Celtics might have erased a huge deficit, as they did in Game 4 of the NBA Finals against the Lakers, but they never would have imploded the way these Celtics did on Friday. These Celtics looked far more like the Lakers of that series, left to explain a game they had no excuse losing.

Less than 48 hours later, LeBron James and the Miami Heat went out and won a 101-93 decision over the Indiana Pacers, on the road, to reclaim home court advantage. James became just the 12th player in the last 25 years to record as many as 40 points and 18 rebounds in a playoff game. The remaining 11 instances almost all came from a succession of 7-footers - Shaquille O'Neal (five), Hakeem Olajuwon (two), David Robinson (one), Dwight Howard (one) and Dirk Nowitzki (one) - leaving Charles Barkley as the only real comparison.

Oh, and for what it's worth, Barkley had one assist, one steal and one block in his performance, for the Phoenix Suns against Seattle in 1993. James had nine assists, two steals and two blocks.

Short of James' business partners in this market - Messrs. John Henry and Tom Werner, among others - nobody cares for him here, and with good reason. But give James this much: on Sunday, when he needed to be, he was awesome.

Be it Garnett, Paul Pierce or Rajon Rondo, someone on the Celtics tonight is likely to similarly lead the way in a Celtics victory, though that is hardly the point. Thus far, the Celtics have made this postseason far more difficult on themselves than they have had to. The Celtics had a chance to eliminate the Atlanta Hawks in five games and let that affair carelessly slip through their fingers, and they had the chance to do the same with these Sixers. Now this series is headed for six games at a minimum, all amid increasing concerns about the health of Avery Bradley (shoulder) or the legs of just about anybody else wearing Celtics green.

Admittedly, a championship this year has never been a realistic goal, but that is hardly the point. For any team, in Boston or anywhere else, the goal is to go as far as you possibly can, to maximize your talent and potential. For the Celtics, thanks to the luck of the draw, the road to the was all but paved with yellow bricks for them, a succession of Eastern Conference contenders taking major hits with the injuries to Dwight Howard, Derrick Rose and Chris Bosh, among others.

For sure, the Celtics could very well find themselves in the Finals again soon.

But it certainly would be nice if they got out of their own way.

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

Long before Robert Meacham and Pierre Garcon moved far closer to eight digits than to seven, the Patriots made some attempt to sign Wes Welker to a multi-year contract. By many accounts, the Patriots offered Welker two years for a fully guaranteed $16 million, an average of $8 million per season that Welker declined.

So why are the Patriots now offering Welker less?

Are they trying to keep Welker or drive him away?

But that is precisely where we stand, Patriots followers, at least according to what Welker told Boston Herald reporter Karen Guregian on Thursday with regard to "discussions" between him and the team on a longer-term contract. Asked to characterize talks between him and the club, Welker said that things have gotten "worse," indicating that now the team seems even less inclined than before to accommodate him.

Tell you what: let's go over the particulars here (at least as we know them) to make sure we're all seeing this the same way. Last year was Welker's final season on a five-year, $18.1-million deal that ultimately paid him an average of $3.6 million per season. Welker turned 31 earlier this month. The Patriots clearly have reservations about investing in a slot receiver now in his 30s, so they have offered him nothing longer than a two-year deal.

Following the season, the Patriots used the franchise tag on Welker, setting his 2012 salary at a guaranteed $9.52 million. Recently, Welker signed the tender and effectively dismissed any remaining thought that he might hold out, issuing a tweet that all but begged the Patriots to meet him in the middle.

"I signed my tender today. I love the game and I love my teammates!" Welker typed. "Hopefully doing the right thing gets the right results. #leapoffaith"

Since that time, Welker has informed us that the Patriots are now offering even less than the annual average of $8 million they did in the fall, a particularly curious piece of information given the money that was thrown at inferior players like Garcon (in excess of $8 million per with Washington) and Meacham (nearly $7 million per with San Diego). And before anyone suggests that Garcon and Meacham are outside receivers and Welker plays in the slot, it is worth noting that the collective bargaining agreement between players and owners does not distinguish those differences with regard to things like the franchise tender.

In the NFL structure, a receiver is a receiver is a receiver.

You should also know this: if the Patriots want to franchise Welker again after next season, they have the right to do so. (This would allow the Patriots to protect themselves against injury and pay Welker on a year-to-year basis, at least through 2013) If that happens, Welker's salary in 2013 will be roughly $11.4 million, placing his two-year earnings (for 2012-2013) just a shade under $21 million, fully guaranteed.

Got all that? In the fall, Welker was offered $16 million guaranteed over two years. Since then, the price for receivers has gone up and Welker now is in position, so long as he stays healthy, so earn $21 million guaranteed over the next two seasons. So why would the Patriots offer even less than the original $16 million?

To bust Welker's chops? To let him know who's boss? To remind him that NFL players have few or no rights at all when it comes to leverage?

Let's make this clear. No one is suggesting that Welker deserves Larry Fitzgerald money or Calvin Johnson money. He doesn't. And if the Patriots don't want to give Welker a long-term deal, that is certainly within their power. (Again, NFL players have no rights) But if that is the Patriots' ultimate end game, then why not just sit down with Welker and tell him, in the simplest terms.

Wes, we value you tremendously, but we're not comfortable giving you a multiyear deal. We don't expect you to like it. We hope you understand. If all goes well, you might very well be franchised again and you'll end up making $21 million over two years.

Instead, the Patriots offered a two-year deal worth less than they offered at the end of last year, as if they're trying to kick Welker while he's down.

And take that.

Of course, there is the very distinct possibility that the Patriots have no intention of using the franchise tag again on Welker next year because they don't want to pay a slot receiver $11.4 million. During this offseason, the Patriots have signed, re-signed or renegotiated with just about any relatively low-cost receiver that wasn't nailed down. (Isn't it interesting how when a guy like Chad Ochocinco underperforms the Patriots want money back?) Add in Daniel Fells and the Patriots have a list of potential pass-catchers that includes Brandon Lloyd, Ochocinco, Deion Branch, Jabar Gaffney, Donte Stallworth, Anthony Gonzalez, Julian Edelman and others, not to mention tight ends Rob Gronkowski, Fells and Aaron Hernandez, the last of whom looks like a slot receiver-in-waiting.

Maybe Welker watched all of this and decided to sign his tender before the Patriots rescinded it. Maybe the Patriots leveraged him into it. Regardless, Welker is now learning that football is football and business is business, and in Foxborough, especially, an adage holds true.

Even if they're good players, nice guys often finish last.

Bill Greene/Globe Staff

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

The last time the Red Sox won five games in a row, the streak ultimately reached six. And then, just as the Sox reached .500 and suggested they were prepared to turn a corner, they dropped 9 of 11 and plummeted right back into the depths of dysfunction and futility.

So here we are again.

You buying yet?

Still the possessors of a losing record, the Red Sox defeated the impotent Seattle Mariners by a 5-0 score at Fenway Park on Tuesday behind a honed, refined Josh Beckett. During their winning streak, the Sox have outscored their opponents 34-8. In the last four games, the count is 27-3. Boston pitchers have now made one full trip through the rotation with nothing less than a quality start, which makes this the team's most impressive stretch of the season.

It's a good thing, too.

Because in some ways, the clock is already ticking rather loudly.

Preposterous? Perhaps, and eternal optimists are likely to point out that the Red Sox have precisely 126 games remaining on their schedule. Nonetheless, with the annual trading deadline set for July 31, the reality is that the Red Sox need to determine whether they are contenders or pretenders in the next 6-8 weeks. That means the Sox need to play well now, particularly after stumbling through what was just a marshmallow-soft portion of their schedule.

Before we get into the particulars, consider this: over the last five years in baseball, 29 of the 40 playoff teams (72.5 percent) were in possession of a playoff spot on Aug. 1. Of the 11 that failed, two (the Red Sox and Atlanta Braves) suffered September collapses never before seen in the history of the game. Another - the 2010 Chicago White Sox - held only a half-game lead over the Minnesota Twins, who ultimately overtook the White Sox for the AL Central Division title.

The point? The large majority of the time, the races are decided by Aug. 1. The addition of a fifth playoff team in each league this year obviously changes the equation, but you get the idea. For years, back to and beyond the theories put forth by Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane during the height of the "Moneyball" era, major league executives have essentially operated with a very specific calendar in mind.

The first two months of the season are for evaluation. The second two months are for adjustments and improvements. The final two months are closing time.

If the baseball season were a golf tournament, June and July qualify as "moving day."

In the case of the Red Sox, the first two months thus far have been a rather sizable disappointment. They have a losing record. The pitching has been terrible. Before awakening against the Cleveland Indians and Seattle Mariners in recent days, the Sox went 2-9 against the Chicago White Sox, Oakland A's, Baltimore Orioles and Indians. Overall, they went a decent 13-9 during a 22-game stretch against the dregs of the American League, but it took a five-game winning streak to get there.

Beginning tonight, however, the schedule begins to intensify again. The Sox' next six series will be played, in order, at Tampa, at Philadelphia, at Baltimore, against Tampa, against Detroit, at Toronto. Then comes interleague play, during which the Sox generally will face a succession of National League East teams who have better pitching than Boston does.

If the Sox can win during these next stretches, the potential effect on their season could be considerable. Approaching the deadline, the Sox could be in better position to choose between Will Middlebrooks and Kevin Youkilis at third base. (Middlebrooks is a no-brainer if the club is out of contention; Youkilis could be trade bait either way.) And remember: the Red Sox allegedly traded Marco Scutaro before the season so as to free up payroll for a pitching acquisition, which could help fortify their staff (in the rotation or bullpen) during the middle of the year.

Now the really good news: if the Red Sox can play themselves back into things over the next six weeks or so, they stand to be a far better team after the All-Star break than they currently are. Youkilis, Jacoby Ellsbury, Carl Crawford and Andrew Bailey are just a handful of the Sox players currently on the disabled list. Relying on any of them seems a risky proposition at this point - that is true of any aging player or one with any history of repeated injury - but all have been productive performers at various points of their careers.

That said, the return of those players won't mean much if the Sox slog through another 2-9 stretch following this latest cluster of wins.

In the long term, after all, what the Red Sox face in August and September of this season is daunting. If and when the Sox start to lose in the final two months, they will obviously be asked about last year's epic implosion. (That won't help things.) Beyond that, a stunning 32 of the Red Sox' final 50 games will be played on the road, which will almost certainly have the Sox grumbling again about the schedule and those Sunday night games, especially if things aren't going well.

Can this team be in playoff contention by then? Of course. But if the Sox are going to get there they must start now, at that time of year when the good teams in baseball start to separate themselves from the bad teams.

Before it's too late.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Staff

Rajon Rondo just kept on taking them, one jumper after the next, the ball splashing through the hoop at TD Garden on Saturday night as if there were never a doubt. A triple-double is one thing. Knocking down 18-footers in the crunchiest of crunch times is something altogether different.

Dwell on the points (13), rebounds (12) and assists (17), if you must, but let there be no doubt about regarding Rondo's greatest contribution to the Celtics in their 92-91 victory over the Philadelphia 76ers. With the game in the balance, Rondo knocked down jumpers as if he were Dennis Johnson. That fact clearly was not lost on Celtics coach Doc Rivers, who made a pointed a reference to Rondo's sniping following a game the Celtics absolutely stole.

"I thought Rondo's shooting, obviously, down the stretch was fantastic. He wanted those shots," Rivers told reporters after the Game 1 victory. "We ran that play [for his final jumper]. We were going to switch Ray [Allen] and put him in that spot where the guy curls back up and Rondo wanted that play. He wanted the shot and he took it. That has to be great for his confidence."

And so as the Philadelphia 76ers return to the Garden floor tonight for what is now a critical Game 2 for the Philadelphians, here is the question: How are the Sixers going to defend Rondo now? During Saturday's series-opening affair, the undersized Sixers generally conceded most anything from the outside, particularly if coming from Rondo or Kevin Garnett. Philly rumbled to a 13-point lead in the second quarter and, quite simply, looked younger, healthier, more athletic.

Whether that continues tonight is anybody's guess, but the Sixers now have an interesting problem on their hands: what if Rondo actually starts to make his shots? Prior to the fourth quarter of Saturday's game, Rondo had taken six shots from 15 feet or more, three of them beyond the 3-point line. He was 0 for 6. And then, in rapid succession during the final six minutes of the fourth quarter and with the outcome in the balance, Rondo curled around a succession of picks and squared up at the left elbow, burying theretofore problematic jumpers with such assertiveness that you cannot help but wonder if he has found a sweet spot.

Were he still here, DJ himself could have told Rondo about the opportunities that can come with being labeled a poor shooter. He could have told Rondo that the label may never go away. And DJ could have told Rondo that he was nonetheless regarded as a clutch shooter because he made them on those occasions when it mattered most, operating with the kind of coolness that made him a particular favorite of Larry Bird.

"[Rondo] was aggressive, man," Celtics centerpiece Kevin Garnett told reporters. "I thought second half he did a lot better job looking for his shot."

With all due respect to Garnett, it wasn't in the second half. It was in the second half of the fourth quarter, though there is really no point in splitting hairs. If and when Rondo makes his jumpers - be they on Saturday or at Miami in April -- Rondo becomes a completely different problem and the Celtics become a completely different team. Whether Rondo can consistently develop that skill remains to be seen, and the Sixers are not likely to change their game plan against him just yet.

The triple-doubles? Oh, they're a nice thing for the stat geeks, though what they illustrate more than anything else are Rondo's unique skills as a rebounder. There just have not been many point guards who can rebound quite like him. The points and assists really should be a given considering the shooters the Celtics have on their roster, though that hardly takes away from Rondo's exceptional skills as a ball handler and distributor.

The truth? In the first half on Saturday night - and really for the first three quarters - Rondo played poorly. He was careless with the basketball. For all the flapping TNT analysts did about Rondo's compiling yet another triple-double during his postseason career, they made little mention of his whopping seven turnovers, more than half of the Celtics' total (13) for the game.

Against these Sixers, in particular, turnovers will be problematic for these Celtics. Rivers cited them as the key to the series just moments after the Celtics dispatched the Atlanta Hawks last week, understanding that limiting the Sixers to a half court offense will be critical in defending them.

In the bigger picture, beyond Game 1, we all know what is at stake for these Celtics going forward in what is likely the last run around the trio of Garnett, Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen. In all likelihood, barring an upset somewhere, this is the last series the Celtics should win. Beating the Miami Heat in the Eastern Conference final is hardly a pipe dream, but to call the Celtics favorites would be an obvious stretch. With or without Chris Bosh, Miami has home court. Miami has LeBron James and Dwyane Wade. The Heat dismantled the Celtics in five during last year's Eastern Conference playoffs, and there were many who believed the Celtics had a chance in that series, too.

Additionally, of course, the Celtics currently look worn. Both Pierce and Allen looked sluggish on the floor on Saturday night, seemingly leaving Rondo with only a rejuvenated Garnett at his side. TNT sideline reporter David Aldridge noted as much during his postgame interview with Rondo, when he asked the Celtics point guard about the effect of the postseason schedule on what is indisputable an aged Celtics roster.

"As this series goes on, there's no rest for guys. There's a game every other day," Aldridge said. "For an older team, it may be difficult ...."

"It may not be. Look at us," Rondo interrupted. "We'll be fine."

Maybe they will and maybe they won't.

But if Rondo can repeat what he did Saturday in the final six minutes, all bets are off.

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

Josh Beckett grew up idolizing Roger Clemens, remember, and the bloom wore off that Texas rose, too. And like Clemens, Beckett is now self-destructing at Fenway Park these days in a potentially fatal mix of seeming apathy, stubbornness, pride, and foolishness. Essentially, he is on trial.

Poetic, isn't it? Maybe there is simply something in the Texas water that prevents people from admitting they just screwed it all up. Faced with a crisis on Thursday night that he completely brought upon himself, Beckett simply imploded in an 8-3 defeat that was hardly so close.

Against a Cleveland Indians lineup stacked with left-handed and switch-hitters, Beckett allowed seven hits, seven runs, four doubles, two walks, and two home runs. He left the field to a cascade of boos that he richly deserved, and he now looks -- somewhat incredibly -- even more like someone who just doesn't give a damn.

Near the end, Clemens got this way, too, remember. At this stage of his career, when he was in his early 30s, Clemens went 40-39 with a 3.77 ERA during a four-year span in which the Red Sox generally looked like they look now. Clemens was out of shape. He lost the fire who made him who he was. Clemens basically had three Cy Young Awards in the same pocket where Beckett now holds two World Series rings, and it certainly started to feel like the big guy was just cashing the checks and living off his reputation.

Which is when his reputation really went south.

And so last night, there was Beckett again, telling us all that the off-days belong to him, that players only get 18 off-days during the season, the same way Clemens reminded us that the Red Sox had to carry their own bags through the airport. Clearly, you can only hide a life of entitlement for so long. The nadir of Beckett's existence in Boston coincidentally comes during a week in which Josh Hamilton hit four home runs in a game and made history for the Texas Rangers, which is relevant for this reason: Hamilton was the only man picked ahead of Beckett in the 1999 amateur draft. Hamilton subsequently came thisclose to losing his career amid a rash of personal problems and substance abuse issues, all before he became one of the truly great and inspiring stories in all of baseball.

Josh Hamilton almost had the game taken away from him, and so he learned to appreciate it, respect it, love it. He learned to respect his talent and his teammates, and he got the same back from them. When the Rangers have celebrated postseason victories in recent years, they have done so with ginger ale in their clubhouse, all out of respect for Hamilton. And after Hamilton went 5-for-5 with four home runs and 18 total bases earlier this week, he told television reporters that hitting three home runs in a game was always something he wanted to do, that he had never hit three before, that he never imagined four.

Josh Hamilton looked and sounded like a kid playing stick ball in the neighborhood schoolyard.

So here's the real question for Beckett today, amid all the obvious and well-deserved criticisms for how he has behaved and pitched of late: Do you even like what you do anymore, Josh? Do you? Or do you see your talent as some sort of needless burden? Five years ago, when Beckett was leading the Red Sox to their last world title, Red Sox officials spoke of Beckett having lofty goals, of him wanting to be a 300-game winner. Now they can't get him to keep his weight down during the season. They can't get him to stay off the golf course and do the prudent thing when he is scratched from a start with stiffness in his right lat muscle. The Red Sox just offer a series of meaningless, contradictory statement about Beckett's injury, or non-injury, or work ethic, all seemingly because an admission of guilt or wrongdoing would reveal some weakness.

Um, guys? You're 12-19. You're 19-39 since last September 1. You're beyond weak. You stink so badly right now that there is an entire legion of fans, from the entire six-state region you call yours, ready to quit for the summer. Further burying your anger and frustration isn't going to solve the problem. Ask the sports psychologists on your staff about that.

If you're not going to get mad now, when will you?

Last summer, before the debacle that was September and after becoming a husband and father, Beckett freely admitted that baseball was not the most important thing in his life anymore. He should have just told us baseball has no meaning to him whatsoever. Beckett is signed through 2014 for a guaranteed average of $17 million per season, all of which further detaches him from the realities of the real world. If you call in sick and then get busted on the golf course in the real world, somebody gets pissed off, Josh. You might even get fired. Clearly, none of those rules apply to you and you seem all too happy to remind everyone of it.

Years ago, when Clemens coasted through relative mediocrity, his time in Boston reached an inevitable conclusion. In the final months of the final year of his contract, Clemens picked up the pace with his eyes on free agency. He struck out 20 batters in a game for the second time in his career during a late-season run, tying Cy Young for No. 1 on the club's all-time list for victories. Then Clemens hit the market and recorded the highest average annual salary ever awarded a pitcher to that point in time, leaving the Red Sox in a bitter feud that sprung him (along with the alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs) into the next, glorious phase of his career.

Clemens won four more Cy Young Awards after he left Boston. He won two World Series with the New York Yankees. Clemens reputation since has never been the same in Boston -- or anywhere else, for that matter. And if the Red Sox have any lingering regret from that calamity, it is that they should have dumped Clemens when they had the chance.

With Beckett, the Red Sox had the chance last fall. They whiffed.

And so the protege continues to follow in the footsteps of his mentor, toward an inglorious end that now seems inevitable.

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

In retrospect, on a night like this, the analysis is rather elementary. Daniel Bard needed someone like Daniel Bard behind him in the bullpen.

Instead, Bard lit the fuse on Tuesday night at Kauffman Stadium, where reliever Matt Albers promptly entered with the gasoline in a 6-4 Red Sox defeat to the Kansas City Royals. Just like that, another potential Red Sox victory went poof. And once again, we cannot help but wonder whether Bard is truly suited to start, whether the Red Sox are doing both him and themselves a disservice by keeping him in the starting rotation during a season that looks more like a fire drill with each passing day.

Big picture issues aside - and there are still plenty - let's focus on Bard, now 2-4 with a 4.83 ERA in six starts, most of them against inferior teams and lineups. (Toronto, Tampa Bay, Minnesota, Chicago, Oakland, Kansas City.) He is averaging 5.1 innings per start. He isn't winning. Thus far, Bard has looked like a pitcher who can make his way through a lineup one or two times, the classic five-inning pitcher who has neither the repertoire nor the savvy to be much more.

Can that change? Sure. But there is relatively little in Bard's history to suggest that he will somehow morph into the next Justin Verlander.

Forget the end of Tuesday night's game, which featured a pair of Bard walks to start the eighth inning before Albers entered and allowed a game-breaking three-run homer. This about Bard's entire body of work, both on the mound at Kauffman Stadium and through the first five weeks of the 2012 season. For all of the numbers that dot Bard's outings thus far, the most worrisome is this one: he has just 21 strikeouts in 31.2 innings. This from a man with a fastball that has touched 100 mph in the major leagues, not to mention a slider that should come with reflective, yellow caution signs. (Warning: sharp curve ahead.)

You know why Bard isn't striking anybody out? Because he's trying to pitch like something he is not. Bard seems so concerned with ground balls (19 last night) that he is ignoring his strengths. In the second inning last night, after the Red Sox staked him to a 2-0 lead, Bard allowed a leadoff single to Eric Hosmer. He then seemed so concerned with getting a double play, with negotiating his way out of the mess, that he walked the nearly unwalkable Jeff Francouer and committed a pair of balks during a three-run Royals rally that was positively mind-numbing.

During the succession, NESN analyst Dennis Eckersley noted that Bard seemed unusually preoccupied with the base runners, something that has been true for the large majority (if not all) of this season. So far against Bard this year, with the bases empty, opponents are batting .206 with a .607 OPS. With men on, the numbers balloon to .322 and .819. Under normal circumstances, it would be reasonable to attribute those numbers to some mechanical issue tied to pitching out of the stretch, but Bard has been a career reliever who has worked exclusively out of the stretch position throughout his major league career.

In fact, Terry Francona often relied on Bard with men on base, summoning Bard into games because he knew the reliever could get him what the team wanted and needed.

A strikeout.

So what is Bard doing now in those situations? He's trying to get a double play instead of rearing back and blowing someone away. He's committing balks. His wheels are spinning so furiously that Bard cannot simply do what comes naturally, which is to effortlessly blow the ball by batters who are completely overmatched.

But then, maybe this is why the Red Sox went out and acquired Bobby Jenks as Jonathan Papelbon's heir apparent between the 2010 and 2011 seasons, knowing that asking Bard to close might simply invite his head to get in the way.

Before anyone gets too excited about the ground balls Bard recorded, let's pump the brakes. Even with last night's lopsided ratio, Bard still has recorded nearly as many outs via the air (50) as the ground (50). We should also remember that the Royals, well, stink. Kansas City ranks 13th in the AL in home runs while hitting into more double plays than all but two teams, which means Royals batters couldn't get the ball into the air if their lives depended on it. Granted, the Royals also have struck out fewer times than any team in the league, but that is because Kansas City is largely a collection of slap hitters who can do little or no damage.

As for the issues of Bard's stamina and durability, those are very much in question, too. On Bard's third trip through the order this season - right around the fifth inning - opponents are batting .314 with an .899 OPS against him. On the fourth trip through, opponents have four walks and one hit in eight plate appearances, an on-base percentage of .625. After Bard's 75th pitch, opponents are 10 for 28, a .357 average, with six walks in 36 plate appearances.

The easy explanation for this is that Bard has been conditioned as a short reliever during his major league career, but that is far too simplistic. Bard had all winter to prepare for his role as a starter, just as Derek Lowe did between the 2001 and 2002 seasons. Bard spent the entire spring as a starter. But while Lowe took to starting immediately and won 21 games in 2002 - admittedly, that is a high bar - Bard is still sputtering along without an apparent clue of what he wants to be, which is affecting his ability to get key outs at key times.

Here's the real question worth asking with Bard: what if, by nature, he is a sprinter and not a distance runner? Someone like Lowe was sinkerballer who had started games in the minor leagues, pitched middle relief, been a set-up man, swingman and closer. Bard has been a short reliever since his earliest days in the minors, when the Red Sox decided that the combination of his stuff, delivery and makeup made him more suited for a shorter role. Now, years later and out of financial necessity, the Sox have decided to switch Bard back, even though there was little during his career as a short reliever to suggest he could easily make the transition.

Does Bard have a two-seamer now that he lacked in the minors? Not really. Is he a pitcher more than a thrower? No. In fact, during his time as a reliever under Francona, Bard seemed to wilt late in the season, when his walk totals shoot up and his effectiveness wanes. In effect, that is what happened last night in Kansas City, when Bard walked the first two batters in the eighth inning of a 4-3 game. And it is what happened against Tampa Bay last month, when he walked seven, including Evan Longoria with the bases loaded in a 1-0 Red Sox defeat.

Right now, Daniel Bard is doing what he has always done, which is why this experiment should surprise nobody.

Meanwhile, as we all know, the Red Sox are 12-17 as we approach the middle of May, a particularly worrisome development given that they are now 1-6 in their last seven games - and against Oakland, Baltimore and Kansas City. So far this season, Sox relievers have lost more games than those of any team but the Royals, Toronto Blue Jays and Los Angeles Angels. Going back to September 1 of last year, Bard has now amassed eight losses, more than any pitcher in baseball but Ervin Santana (1-9), including four as a reliever and four as a starter.

Six of one, half dozen of the other?

Perhaps.

But something still suggests that this experiment is going far more wrong than right.

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

Sights, sounds and observations while couch-ridden:

On those nights the shots are falling, like Sunday, the Celtics look positively unbeatable. There is no one to stop them. From Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to even Mickael Pietrus, Brandon Bass and Greg Stiemsma, the Celtics have a collection of shooters like few other teams in the league. That is why LeBron James, in April, called them the best jump-shooting team in the league.

James's remarks, of course, came in the wake of the Celtics' 115-107 win at Miami last month that remains the most impressive win of this Celtics season. The Celtics shot 60.6 percent that day. They shot a preposterous 64.3 percent (9 of 14) from 3-point distance. They all but repeated the trick on Sunday against the Atlanta Hawks in an avalanche of jump shots and 3-pointers that produced a 101-79 victory and a 3-1 series lead in the first round of the Eastern Conference playoffs.

Win or lose tonight in Game 5, the Celtics should rub out these Hawks in no more than six games. In the next round, the Celtics should rub out the Philadelphia 76ers or Chicago Bulls, too. All of that should set up a rematch with the Heat for the right to go to the NBA Finals, and this year's meetings with the Heat have proven that the Celtics indisputably have a chance.

A championship? That still seems unlikely. Even against Miami, the Heat (who will have home court) certainly will be favored. But short of unforseen injury, nothing should stop the Celtics from being in the NBA's final four.

For all of the credit being heaped upon Celtics vice president of basketball operations Danny Ainge this season, for all of the confidence Ainge allegedly showed in his team by failing to "blow it up," we all know better. We all know Ainge was willing to (and tried to) deal. Where Ainge really gets the credit now - and over these last five years - is for continuing to add shooters to a Celtics core of Garnett, Allen and Pierce, all of whom can consistently puncture opponents from the outside.

Generally speaking, think of the complementary players Ainge has brought to Boston in complementary roles over the last five years. James Posey. Eddie House. Sam Cassell. Rasheed Wallace. Pietrus. Bass. Even Keyon Dooling, Delonte West, Sasha Pavlovic and Von Wafer. All of them were at least respectable to above-average shooters at their respective positions, acquisitions designed to make the Celtrics tougher to defend in the half-court setting that invariably categorizes the postseason.

On Sunday, did you find yourself lamenting the Celtics' absence of a low-post offense, something that is almost never talked about anymore? What about their deficiencies in rebounding? The Celtics of today are, in many ways, no different than the Celtics of 2007-08, built on defense and jump shooting, save for the slashing of someone like Avery Bradley.

As Globe columnist Bob Ryan noted on Monday, Celtics coach Doc Rivers often has described the NBA as a "make-miss league."

When the Celtics make like they did Sunday, a trip to the Eastern Conference final seems like a can't-miss proposition.

* * *

Kevin Youkilis is doing all the right things, greeting Will Middlebrooks with smiles at the top step of the dugout, but we all know what is going on here. In four games, Middlebrooks is batting .381 with three home runs and nine RBIs, all as Youkilis and the Red Sox approach the end of a deal that has the Sox holding a $13 million option for next season.

Fact: if Middlebrooks keeps playing like this, Kevin Youkilis is not getting his job back. Not this year. Not as the Red Sox continue to plod along in what seems like the definition of a bridge year, a team without an identity and, it seems, much of a chance. If and when that changes, the Red Sox can adjust accordingly. But there is one (and only one reason) to play Youkilis over Middlebrooks if and when Youkilis is ready to return.

To trade him.

Of course, we are still in the early stages of the 2012 season, and so there is ample time to evaluate these Red Sox, decide what is best for the short term and the long. But in the next two months, the Red Sox will be playing for more than just a potential place among the contenders in the American League. They will be playing for the trading deadline, for the purpose of deciding who stays and who goes in what looks to be a transitional year.

If the Sox are not within reasonable striking distance of a playoff spot come July, Youkilis is trade bait, folks. Ditto for David Ortiz or Daisuke Matsuzaka or Cody Ross or Mike Aviles. For that matter, ditto for just about anyone who might leave the Sox this fall or next. (This means you, Jacoby Ellsbury.) In the wake of last year's September collapse, the Red Sox must take a hard look at anything and everything on the trade market, particularly with youngsters like Middlebrooks, Ryan Kalish, Ryan Lavarnway and Jose Iglesias, among others, now on the cusp of the big leagues.

Middlebrooks is now only the obvious.

* * *

In some ways, Matt Light is that rarest of the rare, an NFL starter since essentially the day he set foot in an NFL traning camp. Light played 12 years and 155 games in the NFL, 153 of them starts. He started every game he played from early in his rookie year. Light protected the blind side of Drew Bledsoe (some) and Tom Brady (mostly) during five trips to the Super Bowl, six trips to the AFC championship and three Super Bowl titles, and he did so with relative consistency, professionalism, dignity.

Was Light ever the best left tackle in pro football, a Hall of Fame-type talent? No. But he was better than average, a very good player for a long time on what has been the most successfuil organization in football during his tenure, which is hardly a coincidence.

Light, in many ways, was the model Patriot during his career, a workmanlike and efficient player who did not self-promote despite a high-profile position.

With regard to the Patriots, the impact of Light's departure could be profound. Logan Mankins will be out for the start of the season. Now the Patriots will have a new left tackle (presumably Nate Solder) on the left side, too. All of that means that Brady's blind side will be guarded by an entirely new tandem, at least in the early part of the season, which may now be the biggest question for a team that has loaded up on offense and defense in free agency and the draft, in that order.

Like any player, Matt Light had good years and bad years during his time with the Patriots.

Maybe now, in his absence, we will come to understand just how good

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

Come to think of it, Rajon Rondo always has had a rather sizable chip on his shoulder. Hopefully, he has learned a rather valuable lesson.

Make it work for you, Rajon.

Not against.

"I try not to let my emotions get the best of me, but I'm an emotional player," Rondo told reporters Thursday as the Celtics prepared for Game 3 of their Eastern Conference quarterfinal series with the Atlanta Hawks. "I try to keep my composure and my emotions to myself, but it was a heat-of-the-battle moment and I wanted to win. We make mistakes. I'm not on trial, or anything."

Actually, Rajon, you are on trial. Such is the life of a professional athlete in this day and age, particularly in Boston, where we expect the best of the best to be intense yet mature, gifted yet hard-working, confident yet humble. Mistakes are allowed, to be sure. But getting yourself suspended for Game 2 of this playoff series was a colossal error in judgment with potentially enormous repercussions.

An exaggeration? Hardly. Take a good look at the Eastern Conference at the moment. Derrick Rose is out. Dwight Howard is out. All that stands between the Celtics and another trip to the Finals during this latest era in team history is a potential matchup with the Miami Heat in the Eastern Conference finals, and we all know how the Celtics fared against Miami during the final weeks of the regular season.

If Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce haven't already missed their final chance at a title, you nearly made sure of it.

Deep down, Rondo himself knows this, which is why, according to Celtics coach Doc Rivers, Rondo waited at the team bus and thanks his teammates as they boarded their way back to Boston for Game 3. Whether Rondo expresses that type of contrition and gratitude publicly hardly matters. But those certainly sound like the actions of a contrite and grateful man, which is really all anyone should want.

What we should all want now is for Rondo to get right back on that line he indisputably crossed in Game 1, when he bumped referee Marc Davis and earned himself a one-game suspension. The Celtics have the Hawks right where they want them now with the next two games to be played at the TD Garden. And with Hawks forward Josh Smith now questionable for duty in Game 3, it is incumbent for the Celtics to do what the Hawks failed to do.

Grab the throat of your opponent.

And squeeze.

By now, we all know the story with Rondo. The petulance. The immaturity. The stubbornness. And the skill. We can all continue to debate Rondo's true value to the Celtics, his viability as a franchise-type player given his shooting deficiencies, his worth on the trade market. But with these Celtics at this particular point in time, Rondo will have increasing value if and when the Celtics advance to the later rounds of these playoffs.

A championship? No one should be talking about that just yet. But take a good look at the remaining teams in the Eastern Conference and ask yourself this question: is there anyone out there, including the Heat, who has a better point guard than the Celtics do? Rondo is a mismatch in any series the Celtics will play before the Finals, which is why it would be interesting to see how the Heat would approach him if and when the time comes. (Dwyane Wade? LeBron James?)

On April 10, after all, Rondo was instrumental in the Celtics' 115-107 win at Miami, a game in which Rondo had 18 points and 15 assists to go along with four rebounds. Statistically, Rondo has had better games during his Celtics career. But the Rondo of that day showed little reluctance to take -- and make -- jump shots, including one 3-pointer, that prove critical on a day when the Celtics shot a whopping 60.6 percent from the field.

The Heat, undoubtedly, will challenge Rondo to repeat that trick if and when the time comes. And if he can do so with even moderate success, how the Heat defend him (and the Celtics) could change dramatically in the series.

For now, of course, the focus remains on the Hawks, who are younger and more athletic than the Celtics. (Isn't everyone?) The scheduling lords were kind enough to give the Celtics two days off between Games 2 and 3, a break that allows the older members of this team to recharge. Rondo should be as fresh as ever entering Game 3, of course, and the goal for the Celtics now should be to rub out the Hawks as quickly as possible, minimizing any tread or wear on Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.

No one is expecting the Celtics to win the championship this year, of course, but they are certainly positioned to make one more entertaining run in what is a deteriorating Eastern Conference.

Keep your head, Rajon.

And don't foul it up.

Will Middlebrooks made his major-league debut Wednesday night at Fenway Park (Getty Images)

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

In retrospect, going all the way back to the beginning of the offseason, maybe the Red Sox were just biding their time. Maybe the Red Sox had their eyes on 2013 far more than they ever did on 2012, and maybe the goal was to make them just interesting enough to draw your ire.

If it looks like a bridge year and feels like a bridge year ... it's a bridge year.

So here's question for you: given the way last year ended, would you be OK with that? Would you be OK with the highest average ticket prices in baseball and absurd parking rates to watch Will Middlebrooks and perhaps Ryan Kalish in lieu of Kevin Youkilis and Ryan Sweeney? The bet here is that you would. The bet is that Red Sox fans still angry over the conclusion of the 2011 would be tolerant of this season with the knowledge that there is a light at the end of the tunnel - in this case an infusion of youth and energy into a Red Sox clubhouse and core that feels stale and spoiled.

One of the biggest problems with these Red Sox, after all, is that they have remained unlikeable. Youkilis is already on the disabled list again. Josh Beckett is missing a turn over the weekend. The Red Sox felt like a team that needed a major shakeup over the winter and team administrators did not provide it. Instead, Sox officials patched together an offseason with low-cost and stopgap alternatives, from the bullpen to the starting rotation to shortstop and the manager's office.

Think about it: is Cody Ross here for the long term? Mike Aviles? Even Youkilis or Bobby Valentine? In some way, shape or form, all of them are keeping the seat warm for the next guy, just as Ryan Sweeney (who would be a good fourth outfielder) is keeping right field warm for Kalish, whenever he is ready.

And then there is the matter of Daniel Bard, whose greatest value to the Red Sox, right now, is indisputably in the bullpen. If the Red Sox were hell-bent on winning a World Series this year as they have been in the past, they would have Bard setting up or closing. Instead, the Sox have resisted multiple urges to shift Bard in the relief corps, all with the idea of making him a more viable and reliable starter in future years.

See a pattern here? Kevin Youkilis could be gone at season's end, the Sox holding a $13 million contract option on him for 2013. Daisuke Matsuzaka will be a free agent. David Ortiz will be up (again) and so will Ross and Kelly Shoppach. Additionally, the Sox will have decisions to make on players like Sweeney and Mike Aviles, arbitration-eligible players who may (or may not) price themselves out of backup jobs.

More importantly, by the start of next season, Middlebrooks, Kalish, Iglesias and Ryan Lavarnway all could be on the big league roster with full-time jobs. (Middlebrooks at third base, Kalish in right field, Iglesias at shortstop and, perhaps, Lavarnway at any combination of catcher, designated hitter and first base.) If the Sox get lucky, maybe even Lars Anderson and Felix Doubront will thrust themselves into the mix.

If all of this sounds premature with regard to 2012, it isn't. When the Red Sox made their decisions last fall, they did so with knowledge of the above. On some level, they expected Middlebrooks, Kalish, Iglesias and Lavarnway to make some transition to the major league level, so they traded lesser assets (Jed Lowrie, Josh Reddick, Kyle Weiland) to make whatever marginal deals they could. They weren't about to sacrifice 2013 for 2012, particularly after the way 2011 ended.

As a fan, here's the one question that really matters: could they have started the process earlier and cut ties with someone like Beckett? How much would that have hurt their chances in 2012? The Red Sox don't look anything like a championship contender as things stand, and something suggests that the Boston fan base would be far more content with a relatively mediocre team of enthusiastic, energetic younger player than players than overpaid, underachieving veteran ones.

The only real reason to keep some of the veteran pieces on this team is because, in theory, they are more established and have a better chance to win now, a belief that goes out the window so long as the Sox play .500 baseball.

Obviously, there is still a great deal of baseball to be played this season. If things go right, given the relative absence of a middle class in the American League this year, the Red Sox could make the playoffs. If and when they get Andrew Bailey, Jacoby Ellsbury, Youkilis, Matsuzaka and others back, they could be a far better team in the second half than in the first. But if the Sox have more series like the one they just had, losing 2 of 3 to the Oakland A's of the world, they may find themselves in an interesting position approaching July 31.

For the first time in a long time, at the July 31 trading deadline, the Sox could be sellers instead of buyers.

As for Valentine, he is easily the most expendable of all "commodities," a 62-year-old manager on a two-year contract who had been out of the game for 10 years. Barring some sort of dramatic and unforeseen turnaround, is there any reason the Red Sox would bring him back next year? The Red Sox could have hired (potentially) a longer-term replacement in Dale Sveum, who at least would have fit the profile of what the organization was under the height of the Terry Francona era. Instead, they opted for a stopgap. Valentine subsequently feels like just another piece of rental furniture of a house full of them, which cannot help but make you wonder:

Maybe the Sox have a far bigger renovation in mind in the very near future.

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

For the Celtics, the blueprint was obvious in this first-round series against the Atlanta Hawks. The Celtics needed to split the first two games in Atlanta and then hold serve in Boston, building a 3-1 series lead that ultimately should have required no more than six games.

But as the saying goes, the best laid plans often go awry.

And in this case, blame it on Rajon Rondo.

The Celtics and Hawks will play Game 2 of their Eastern Conference quarterfinal series tonight in Atlanta, and as we all know, the Celtics will do so without their multi-talented point guard. With 41 seconds left in Sunday's maddening Game 1 loss to the Hawks, Rondo indisputably bumped referee Marc Davis, a rather careless and foolish lapse in judgment that earned Rondo a one-game suspension.

And so now, on a night where there might have been every reason to feel good about the Celtics' chances, the team must play its most important game of the season to date without a point guard.

Nice.

Before we get into the particulars of tonight's game, let's all agree on the magnitude of Rondo's blunder. Quite simply, this was the kind of mistake that can cost a team a series and, perhaps, a trip to the NBA Finals. That is not an exaggeration. If the Celtics lose tonight and ultimately drop this series in seven games, Rondo may have cost himself (and the Celtics) one final run at a championship in what could very well be the final joint crusade for Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.

Think about it. The Celtics played the Miami Heat three times last month and won all three, the most impressive a 115-107 victory in Miami that was the team's best win of the season. Derrick Rose is out for the playoffs and beyond. (For that matter, so is Dwight Howard.) The Eastern Conference is as open as open could be, with only the Heat serving as a legitimate obstacle to the Celtics along the way.

Even then, if things line up right, the Celtics wouldn't have to face Miami until the conference finals.

Rondo's petulance now has interfered with all of that, putting undue pressure on the Celtics to win Game 2 against an athletic Atlanta team that went 23-10 at home this year. (The Celtics were 24-9). Anyone who has paid attention to the NBA can tell you that the Hawks have been a far different team at home than on the road over the last five years, something the Celtics obviously learned in the spring of 2008, when the Hawks forced the Celtics to seven games in the first round despite being the eighth and final seed in the East.

The Celtics ultimately won that series -- and the NBA championship -- because they had home court. And while they may not need home court now as much as they did in 2008, Rondo has made the challenge infinitely more difficult for them.

Can the Celtics still win this game? Of course, though doing so may require them to run their offense through Paul Pierce (5 for 19 in Game 1) with Avery Bradley or Keyon Dooling (or both) manning the "point." Pierce, for his part, was 0 for 6 from 3-point distance in Game 1 -- the Celtics were 0 for 11 as a team -- and Rondo's absence likely means that Pierce won't get many chances to spot up from long distance and redeem himself in Game 2.

Meanwhile, minus Rondo, Bradley gets considerably less effective, too. And so a Celtics half-court offense that can become stuck in the mud anyway now has the chance to positively calcify.

Oh goody.

Beyond Rondo and Pierce, particularly with Allen still sidelined, the key performer for the Celtics in this game is obvious: Garnett. The cornerstone of this Celtics five-year Celtics renaissance -- then and now -- Garnett shot 1 for 9 in the first half of Game 1 and was thoroughly outplayed by Hawks counterpart Josh Smith. If that happens again in Game 2, the Celtics are almost certain to come back to Boston facing a 2-0 series deficit, leaving an aged club with no wiggle room entering the middle of the series.

Remember, folks: the Celtics are old. Any game they can avoid playing now is another they may be able to play later. If the Celtics can keep a series to six games instead of seven, that is less tread on the tires of Garnett and Pierce, at least. In Game 1, Doc Rivers' rotation really consisted of no more than seven players, Dooling and Sasha Pavlovic contributing a whopping six minutes each to the cause.

That is yet another area in which Rondo's bratty behavior strikes them, stripping Rivers of the player who should have been on the floor the longest. (Rondo led the Celtics in average minutes during the season.)

Obviously, the Celtics must approach this game devoid of the bitterness that might have existed after game 1. Garnett, for one, seemed rather perturbed that Rondo took himself out of the mix for Game 2, but these Celtics have proven to be nothing if not tough and resilient. They can still win this game without Rondo. They can still take control of the series. They can still make one more run at the Finals, a task that has suddenly grown considerably more difficult than it should have at this early stage.

But if the Celtics do--- at least for now -- it will be in spite of their enigmatic point guard, and not because of him.

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

Jason Bay was 31 when the Red Sox cut him loose. Victor Martinez was about to turn 32. For that matter, Johnny Damon was essentially the same age, and the Red Sox logic was basically the same on all of them.

Those players were at or near the end of their peak years, and to spend big money on them would be regrettable by the time they crept into their mid-30s.

Well don't look now, Red Sox fans, but Carl Demonte Crawford will be 31 years old on Aug. 5 of this year, and there is simply no way of knowing whether he will have played in a game this season by that time. Prior to last night's Battle of the Soxes between the Boston Red and Chicago White at U.S. Cellular Field, the Red Sox announced that Crawford has a "sprain" of the ulnar collateral ligament in his left elbow, which is a nice way of saying that Crawford has a partial ligament tear.

According to the same release, "a conservative treatment protocol was recommended," and Crawford, based on some estimates, will miss roughly three months. No surgery.

For now.

Before we start discussing whether Crawford has now entered the competition for The Worst Free Agent Signing in History - and he has - let's focus on the truly worrisome part of this news for the Red Sox. These are supposed to be Crawford's peak years. These are the seasons in which the Red Sox should have received the biggest bang for the buck. Following the 2010 season, when the Sox signed Crawford to a whopping seven-year, $142-million contract, the Red Sox told us that their research suggested someone like Crawford would age relatively well, which is why they seemingly broke their own rules and gave Crawford the third-biggest contract in club history behind Manny Ramirez ($160 million) and Adrian Gonzalez ($154 million).

Now, as Crawford approaches his 31st birthday, he doesn't seem to be aging well at all. He had wrist surgery over the winter. Now he has a ligament problem in his elbow. All of this comes after a 2011 season in which Crawford batted .255 with just 18 steals in 24 attempts, all while posting a .694 OPS that ranked 61st among the 74 American League players with at least 500 plate appearances, just ahead of thunder sticks like Cliff Pennington and Robert Andino.

Like your old man might have told you: $20 million a year just doesn't get you what it used to.

What the Red Sox really need to ask themselves is why the Crawford mistake happened and whether it could have been avoided. Was Crawford really "a baseball signing," as owner John Henry has alleged, or was the acquisition more driven by the desire to hike television ratings and fan interest? Before Crawford came along, the Red Sox believed in plate discipline as much as anything else. Then they spent $142 million on a relatively free-swinging slasher who had never so much as hit 20 home runs in a season.

We said it then and we'll say it now: we love when the Red Sox throw their weight around by walking into a room and tossing their overstuffed wallet onto the table. But Crawford was never worth anything close to $20 million a year. That kind of cash is reserved for ace pitchers and skilled power hitters, men like C.C. Sabathia and Roy Halladay, Alex Rodriguez, Albert Pujols and Miguel Cabrera.

The point is that Crawford was a bust before he played a single game in Boston. Now he is merely venturing into the territory of historic bust.

Beyond the current on-field and clubhouse issues with Bobby Valentine and a roster of players that remains largely overpaid and underachieving, the Red Sox' bigger-picture problems in recent years have been obvious. When the Red Sox were at their best in the first five or six years of this ownership group, they had the best of all worlds - the spending power of a big-market team and the player development operation of a small-market club. This past winter, especially, they had neither. A collection of bad signings - Crawford, John Lackey and Daisuke Matsuzaka alone account for $327.5 million - coupled with a developmental drought meant the addition of no significant impact talent on this year's Opening Day roster, leaving general manager Ben Cherington to plug holes with people like Vicente Padilla, Cody Ross, Ryan Sweeney and Kelly Shoppach.

Those kinds of players are absolutely fine if you have a stud coming up through the minor league system. But if you don't - and you're limited to small pickups - there's really no difference between you and the Pittsburgh Pirates.

In the case of Crawford, let's hope the Red Sox learned their lesson. If they (and you) are smart, they'll write off Crawford for this year and start exploring ways to mitigate the damage in future seasons, either by eating money and trading him (highly unlikely) or by lowering expectations. (Translation: build your team as if he weren't here.) What if Crawford is heading toward Tommy John surgery, the way John Lackey was when the Red Sox made that deal? (Lackey's was another curious one given Lackey's age and injury history) Anyone who believes it's not a possibility is living in a land of make-believe.

Hilarious, right? When Bay was 31, the Red Sox pulled out of a four-year deal worth $60 million. With Damon, the Sox would offer no more than four years and $40 million. Now Crawford has five years and more than $101 million remaining on his deal as he approaches his 31st birthday, and we're supposed to think there is some chance this could still be a good deal.

No shot.

What a train wreck.

By Tony Massarotti, Boston.com Columnist

The seventh game belonged to the Bruins a year ago, from the first round to the last, en route to their first Stanley Cup in 39 years. The Bruins played three Game 7s last spring. They won them all. They never so much as trailed in any of them.

And so tonight at the TD Garden, the Bruins return to that place where entire seasons teeter and where they have most recently done their very best work.

The edge.

We all know how Game 7s work, of course, and we all know what they mean. There is simply no more ground to give now. Game 7 requires the utmost focus, maximum intensity, commitment to precision and detail. Nowhere is that truer than in the NHL, where the speed and continuity of play mean that the smallest mistake at any given time can be the difference between winning and losing.

Quite simply, no other sport can replicate it. Baseball and football have built-in stoppage between plays. Basketball is inevitably disrupted by a succession of whistles, and the speed of the game does not compare. But in hockey, the smallest things are indisputably connected, one leading to the other.

In Game 7 of last year's first-round playoff series between the Bruins and Montreal Canadiens, the Bruins won in overtime, on a deflection, to defeat the Canadiens in the game and series, 4-3. Do you remember the sequence that preceded the goal? There was a faceoff to the right of Montreal goalie Carey Price. Bruins center David Krejci won the draw, but the puck ended up in the corner to Price's right. The Bruins and Canadiens battled for the puck, moving from one corner to the other, before the puck popped into the air.

Bruins forward Milan Lucic grabbed the puck, dropped it to his stick and shuttled a pass to Nathan Horton, who blasted a slap shot through a crowd that deflected off a Canadiens defenseman and squirted past Price.

What if Krejci had lost the draw? What if Lucic had mishandled the puck? What if Horton's shot had made it through cleanly, without interference?

So it goes in the NHL playoffs, the sports world's purest incarnation of the butterfly effect.

On a grander scale, the effects of Game 7 also translated. Despite having leads of 2-0 and 3-2 in their Game 7 against the Canadiens, the Bruins wobbled. They blew both leads. They nearly choked. Under coach Claude Julien, the Bruins had been to a seventh game on three prior occasions and lost them all, two of them coming on their home ice. Against the Philadelphia Flyers only a year earlier, the Bruins raced to a 3-0 first-period lead against the Flyers before ultimately tumbling to a 4-3 defeat, blowing a 3-0 series lead in the process.

Had the Bruins lost last spring to the Canadiens, think of what we would have been saying about them for the better part of the last year. They can't close. They choke under pressure. Instead, the Bruins used their Game 7 win as a springboard, particularly against the Tampa Bay Lightning in Game 7 of the eastern Conference finals.

That series, too, went to a seventh game. This time, buoyed by their success in Game 7 against Montreal, the Bruins turned in the kind of performance that left almost nothing to chance. They outshot the Lightning 38-24. They controlled the puck and generally dominated play. They were fortified by their Game 7 win over the Canadiens and subsequent sweep of the Flyers (in the second round), the butterfly effect this time working on a far greater level.

By the time the Bruins got to game 7 against the Vancouver Canucks in the Stanley Cup finals, Game 7 belonged to them. They owned it. The victory over Montreal, albeit a little shaky, came on the Garden ice. The victory over Tampa Bay was far more convincing, but again came on the familiar surface at the TD Garden. Game 7 of the Cup finals was played in Vancouver, where the Bruins had lost Games 1, 2 and 5 of the series, where Horton (now injured) poured water he had transported from the team's home in Boston.

It's our ice now.

In Game 7 against Vancouver, the Bruins scored once in the first, twice in the second, once more in the third (an empty-net goal). The Canucks never scored at all. The Bruins became the first team in NHL history to win three Game 7s in the same postseason, the scores of their respective victories over the Canadiens, Lightning and Canucks looking like their very own growth chart: 4-3, 1-0 and 4-0.

Along the way, here is what the Bruins learned: that a team can win Game 7 with a little luck, or that a team can win Game 7 by leaving nothing to chance. They learned that a team can win Game 7 at home or on the road. They learned that Game 7 can bring them to the greatest heights as surely as it had delivered them to the cruelest depths, and that the distance between can be as fine as the edge on their skates.

Game 7 returns to Boston tonight. Most recently, it has belonged to the Bruins. It is seemingly theirs to win. Or to lose.

Barry Chin/Globe Staff

"This is not a 14-game problem. This is 41-game problem. Our pitching has been terrible over the last 41 regular season games."
- Red Sox owner John Henry to Sean McAdam of Comcast Sports Net over the weekend.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

The amusing thing, of course, is that the Red Sox did nothing to improve their pitching staff during the offseason. They changed managers and pitching coaches. They reassigned clubhouse personnel. They made just about every cosmetic change possible instead of treating the real, core issues.

The first was to get innings for the starting rotation. The second was to rebuild the bullpen. The third was to improve the clubhouse.

They went 0-for-3 with three spectacular whiffs.

And so now, 14 games into a 2012 season that has been an utter train wreck thus far, the owner of the Red Sox is acknowledging that the club has picked up precisely where it left off. So who are you going to blame now? John Henry is trying to put this on the pitchers, it seems, though the truth is that the Red Sox have done nothing to significantly alter the makeup of their team since last September's embarrassing ineptitude.

Earth to Messrs. Henry, Tom Werner and Larry Lucchino: you keep treating last September as if it were some type of mathematical deviation instead of what it actually was - a mutiny. When your players complained, you gave them headphones and invited them on a yacht. The spoiled grew more spoiled. The detached grew more detached. And so what you have now is even worse than what you had a then, a collection of even more entitled, aimless and unmotivated millionaires than you had before.

It's OK to get mad, men. It would actually be quite refreshing. It might convince everyone - most importantly, your players - that you actually have spines.

Let's go back to last fall for a minute. Instead of taking it upon themselves to fire Terry Francona, who admitted he lost the team, the Sox resorted to calling Francona's decision "mutual." They then decided that they were going to do little or no spending thanks to a collection of dead contracts, taking themselves out of the running for any and all pitching while making a couple of nothing trades for Mark Melancon and Andrew Bailey.

Along the way, the Sox "addressed" the clubhouse issues by cutting ties with veterans like Jason Varitek and Tim Wakefield, relatively easy moves with players who had minor roles. Josh Beckett stayed. Kevin Youkilis stayed. David Ortiz and Jacoby Ellsbury stayed. Jonathan Papelbon was cut loose and Daniel Bard was earmarked for the starting rotation, adding to a list of moves that made the Red Sox weaker, not stronger.

We said this then and we'll say it now: the Sox needed to shake up the mix with at least one major move that involved a core player. They could have moved Beckett and Ellsbury, for example, the former because he has lost interest, the latter because he was coming off a career year and will likely leave via free agency at the end of next year. They could have cut ties with Ortiz. The resulting changes would have altered the dreadful chemistry of this group and freed up some payroll, two things the Sox desperately needed.

The Sox might have suffered in the short term, but even if players like Beckett and Ellsbury were moved for prospects, at least we could all feel like the team was building toward something again.

Instead, the Sox have the worst of all scenarios - an aging collection of fat cats with whom they seem stuck.

Here's another thing the Sox could have done: they could have trusted the general manager they hired, Ben Cherington, and hired Dale Sveum as manager. They could have let the baseball people do the baseball things. Instead, they introduced the egomaniacal, seemingly out-of-touch Bobby Valentine into an already combustible mix, putting everyone from the 25th man to the manager in a position to fail.

According to a weekend report by Bill Madden of the New York Daily News, Valentine chastised infielder Mike Aviles early in spring training. (This would further validate Valentine's desire for Jose Iglesias.) The players, already on alert given Valentine's reputation, immediately rebuked their manager, who cowered, apologized to Aviles, and subsequently spent the rest of the spring tossing bouquets at the player, going so far as to say that Aviles could strike "fear" into opposing pitchers as a leadoff man.

Ellsbury, who was the first 30-30 man in Red Sox history last season, was completely healthy at the time.

What the Sox can do now to correct all these problems is anybody's guess because most clubs take a hands-off approach to their rosters until the end of May at the earliest. (Had the Sox traded Michael Bowden for Marlon Byrd over the winter, they could have saved themselves the Cody Ross pickup.) If the Sox are smart, they'll stop playing semantics with Bard and merely move him back to the bullpen full-time, then hope to catch lightning in a bottle by promoting Aaron Cook to the rotation.

In the interim, somebody in this organization needs to aggressively take control. Cherington may be the best bet, if for no other reason than the fact that uniformed personnel clearly lack respect for Henry, Werner, Lucchino or Valentine. The players are too childish to sort out their own issues. And so the Red Sox are left with an array of problems and seemingly no one capable of addressing them, largely because they're too selfish or clueless or both.

Happy 100th, Fenway Park.

Looks like you're back to being a nuthouse.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

What the Bruins are being reminded of now is what the Vancouver Canucks were reminded of a year ago, albeit far later in the process. In the NHL playoffs, there are no easy series. There are no easy games. There is a merely a succession of tightly contested one-goal affairs that can often depend on the bounce of a puck, and leaving the outcome to chance can be dangerous business.

Let's hope the Bruins tell themselves this before they take to the ice this weekend for Games 5 and 6 of their first-round series against the persistent Washington Capitals.

Here's an alarming thought for you, folks: if the Bruins are not careful on Saturday and Sunday, the 2011-12 Boston hockey season could be over by the time you show up for work next week. How's that for a dose of reality?

As Globe hockey guru Kevin Paul Dupont has noted, the Bruins have led for just 14 minutes, 51 seconds in their current first-round series with the Caps. Boston's opponent, by contrast, has held the advantage for a whopping 72 minutes and 13 seconds since the start of Game 2 - Game 1 was scoreless before the Bruins won in overtime - numbers that deliver a rather disturbing message as we creep into the later stages of Round 1.

However passively, Washington is controlling these games, no matter the differential in shots on goal. (Boston 148, Washington 110.) The Caps, quite simply, generally have been dictating the style and pace of play, frustrating the Bruins in the process.

The good news? If the Caps have controlled the games, the Bruins still have controlled the series. The Bruins won Game 1. After Washington responded, the Bruins won Game 3. Games 2 and 4, as a result, have been virtual must-wins for Washington lest the Capitals fall behind in the series by a pair of games, the kind of gap that heightens desperation and is difficult to overcome.

And so, we wonder: Do the Bruins have some aversion to putting a team away when they can? Or does this all have more to do with desperation, urgency and the fact that human nature inspires us to do things only when we have to?

For the Bruins, as we all know, the pattern of this series is a significant departure from even the earliest rounds of last postseason, when they repeatedly dug themselves holes. They fell behind in games to the Montreal Canadiens in the first round, 2-0. The subsequent series with the Philadelphia Flyers was a Bruins sweep, but the lingering memories of having blown a 3-0 series lead to the Flyers in 2010 were a variable that few postseason series ever possess. The Bruins seemed to treat every game against the Flyers like a must win.

After that, the Bruins reverted right back to form. They dropped Game 1 against Tampa Bay. After taking the next two contests, they held a 3-0 lead in Game 4 and appeared on the verge of a commanding 3-1 series lead before - you guessed it - they stumbled. Against the Lightning, the Bruins looked shaky in a victorious Game 5 and lost Game 6 before ultimately putting forth their best performance of the series in Game 7, a 1-0 victory that was virtually airtight.

And then, against the Vancouver Canucks, the Bruins again fell behind in the Stanley Cup finals, 2-0, and never led the series until they won Game 7.

The point? In the last two years, the Bruins have played their best hockey when they have absolutely, positively had to. They have seemed to respond far better when pushed. In 2010 against the Flyers, they led the series, 3-0, and then led Game 7 by the same score. They went to sleep and lost both. They did not take a series lead against the Canadiens last year until Game 5, then lost Game 6. Against Tampa Bay, they twice had the chance to go up by two games (in Games 4 and 6, the latter a potential clincher) and lost both.

See a pattern here? For all of the growing the Bruins have done as an organization, there is still more they can do. Last year, they learned how to win. But what the Bruins could still benefit from now is learning how to make things a little easier on themselves, particularly with an aging goaltender and following an extended playoff run last year.

When you get right down to it, even the regular season suggested a similar pattern. The Bruins came out sluggish in the first few weeks and then put the pedal to the metal over the next 25 games or so. Once their place in the NHL hierarchy was securely established, they went on cruise control for about two-and-a-half months. Only at the very end, with the playoffs coming, did they kick it up a notch.

If you interpret all of this as the sign of a relatively mature team, you'd be right. The season is long. The veteran clubs know where they can cut corners and cheat a little. Relative to a year ago at this time, the Bruins collectively have a far better understanding of who they are and what they are capable of, which is why nobody should be ready to sound any alarms.

Still, here's the problem with that kind of thinking: once you get to this stage, a bad bounce or hot goaltender can completely foul up your plans. In hockey more than any other sport, the margin for error can be microscopically thin. The failure to grab a team by the throat early in a series can prove terribly costly at the end, something the Canadiens and Canucks both learned against the Bruins last season.

And so, are the Bruins in trouble now? Not yet. Not really.

But based on their history over the last two years, maybe we should tell them they are.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

In the National Football League, as we all know, there are no guarantees. And at this time of year, one of the most foolish exercises involves a preliminary review of the NFL, when Ws and Ls are placed next to games as if they were yes-or-no questions on a medical questionnaire.

That said, the 2012 Patriots look like they could be in for a relative cakewalk.

Slightly more than two months removed from their loss to the New York Giants in Super Bowl XLVI, the Patriots joined the other 31 NFL franchises on Tuesday in learning their official schedule for the coming season. Aside from their annual games within the division and corresponding matchups with the other division winners in the AFC, the Patriots drew games against the marshmallow residents of the NFC West and AFC South.

Don't know about you, but I've got 'em at 14-2 or 13-3 again, which puts the Patriots within two wins of another trip to the Super Bowl.

Is that presumptuous?

Sparing you the specific starting times and TV schedules, here is breakdown of the Patriots schedule, in order:

Week 1 - at Tennessee
Week 2 - vs. Arizona
Week 3 - at Baltimore
Week 4 - at Buffalo
Week 5 - vs. Denver
Week 6 - at Seattle
Week 7 - vs. New York Jets
Week 8 - at St. Louis (in London)
Week 9 - Bye
Week 10 - vs. Buffalo
Week 11 - vs. Indianapolis
Week 12 - at New York Jets
Week 13 - at Miami
Week 14 - vs. Houston
Week 15 - vs. San Francisco
Week 16 - at Jacksonville
Week 17 - vs. Miami

Obviously, the matchups with Baltimore, Houston and San Francisco stand out - all three teams having reached the divisional round of the playoffs last season with only Houston (minus Matt Schaub) having reached championship weekend. Like New England, Baltimore, Houston and San Francisco have Super Bowl aspirations entering the 2012 season, though it is worth noting that the Patriots will play one of those clubs (Baltimore) on the road.

But the rest of the schedule? Try to find one game where the Patriots won't be the favorite. Just one. With Mario Williams in tow, Buffalo should be better. Seattle is always a tough place to play. The Jets are likely to bounce back and Denver (with Peyton Manning) will certainly be interesting, but it's hard to believe the Patriots will drop more than one of those games - if they drop any at all.

With good reason, many of you (including Bill Belichick, no doubt) chuckle at this kind of elementary analysis (and with good reason). The NFL is an unpredictable league. One injury can alter the course of an entire season. (Ask the Colts about this.) And while those are indisputable truths for all franchises, no team in the NFL has been as consistent as the Patriots over the last 10-11 years in the NFL.

Go back and look at last year's schedule, during which the Patriots posted a 13-3 record. Save for Buffalo, New England did not lose a single game it should have won. Thanks to Belichick's demand for focus, the Patriots almost never slip up against inferior competition. They don't have regular season lapses the way the Ravens did. (Last season, the Ravens lost at Tennessee, at Seattle, at Jacksonville and at San Diego - none of whom made the playoffs. Had the Ravens played .500 in those games, the AFC championship would have been played in Baltimore instead of Foxborough.)

Since the Super Bowl loss to the Giants, Belichick has been a busy man. While the Patriots have concerns and questions on the left side of their offensive line, Belichick has furnished offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels and quarterback Tom Brady with a new collection of toys that includes Brandon Lloyd, Anthony Gonzalez and Donte Stallworth, among others. The Patriots still have some obvious questions on defense, but they went 15-3 with a marginal (at best) defense last year before losing to the Giants in the Super Bowl - and they played a far tougher schedule in the first half of the season.

Oh, and did we mention that the Patriots have four selections in the first two rounds of next week's NFL draft?

In the last few years, we all know the story lines with regard to the Patriots. The offense has been very good and the defense has been suspect, all as the clock has continued to tick on Brady's career. Now the Patriots are coming off a loss in the Super Bowl, the kind of defeat that has sent many teams into a tailspin. Belichick is undoubtedly aware of this, which might be part of the reason the Patriots restructured Brady's contract to further fortify the roster with talent.

At this stage, based on the sheer volume of moves, it certainly feels as if the Patriots are gearing up for another spirited run at a title.

And based solely on preliminary view, they have the schedule to make it happen.