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.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Staff

"I really don't know what Bobby is trying to do. That's not the way we go about our stuff around here."

- Red Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia, speaking to reporters before Monday's game between the Red Sox and Tampa Bay Rays at Fenway Park.

And so the Red Sox continue to float aimlessly along, with no apparent direction or leader. The second baseman reprimanded the manager, who tweaked the third baseman, who was asked if he is a snitch. The No. 2 starter is still looking for said mole. The general manager seemed to back his player and not the skipper, whom the GM never wanted and who was all but appointed by the owners, who seem more interested in soccer.

Meanwhile, the Red Sox are 4-6 entering Tuesday night's series opener against the two-time defending American League champion Texas Rangers, who currently have the best record in the American League.

The Bobby Valentine Era is off to a raging start, eh?

Time heals all wounds, or so we have been told, but here's the real problem with the 2012 Red Sox: whether it was Terry Francona last September or Valentine now, the manager doesn't have a leg to stand on. Players undercut him then and they're undercutting him now. (Shame on them for this.) The only people who wanted Valentine here at all are the people on the highest levels of the organization, who presumably brought Valentine here on a two-year contract to shake things up, only to see him castrated by his clubhouse the first time he spoke up.

News flash: Bobby V. talks too much. He cannot help himself. Anyone with half a clue knew this before Valentine ever set foot in Boston, and so no one should be surprised when Valentine is asked a question about Kevin Youkilis and then answers it.

So here's a question for you, folks: why, exactly, is Bobby Valentine here? Seriously. What was he brought in to do? If Red Sox ownership (John Henry and Tom Werner) or upper management (Larry Lucchino) wanted Valentine here to ruffle feathers and put the team on edge, then they need to come out soon and say so. At the moment, after all, Valentine doesn't seem to be getting support anywhere else. Bobby V. has been here all of 10 games and is being booed by the fans, dismissed by his players and lectured to by his GM, which is basically what was happening to Francona at the end of last season.

If the manager of the Red Sox doesn't have credibility or trust within the walls of his own organization, he's certainly not going to get any outside of Fenway Park, either.

For all of his faults -- and he has plenty -- Valentine is now starting to look like a relatively sympathetic figure, though he brings much of his issues on himself. Valentine will be 62 next month. He comes off as self-promoting and disingenuous. But Red Sox fans and players have not so much as given the man a chance, Valentine all but exiled beyond the city limits.

Earth to Red Sox players: Francona covered your backs for eight years and you got him fired last September. You have no right to complain about anything anymore. Had you conducted yourselves with a little more professionalism and been a whole lot more committed, you would likely still possess a secure environment. The moment that blew up, you left yourselves open to an array of possibilities, one of which was a manager who wasn't going to repeatedly tell you how great you are.

If someone like Pedroia has an issue with that, he really needs to take it up with the gluttonous teammates through whose greasy fingers last year's season slipped. We all like Pedroia. We all like what he stands for. But the players work for the manager, not the other way around.

As for Cherington, he was hardly in a position to say no when the Red Sox named him the successor to Theo Epstein. He has waited a long time for the job. But when the GM of the Red Sox says that he read Valentine's comments about Youkilis and came away with the same feeling the player did, well, it certainly feels as if he's leaving his manager on an island. If Cherington had his way, Dale Sveum would undoubtedly be the manager of the Red Sox. Instead, there is now the feeling that neither the players nor the GM want Bobby V. here at all, which leaves Valentine, we think, with only a few friends in very high places.

In the end, as is almost always the case, the line here leads back to Red Sox ownership, which needs to put its foot down some time very soon. Last season, when Red Sox players complained about the schedule, the answer of ownership was to give them all headphones and invite them on John Henry's yacht. So what are they all going to get now? The latest iPad? The players on this club need to be put in their place. They need to be taught the chain of command. They need to understand that they just work here and that Bobby Valentine is their manager, like it or not, or someone needs to be sent packing.

The way things feel right now, after all, there is simply no way this is going to work as is.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

More than anyone or anything during the 100-year history of Fenway Park, home has been good to the Red Sox. Home is where they have been embraced. Home is where they have hit. And home, far more often than not, is where they have won.

And so today, on Opening Day of their 100th anniversary season at Fenway Park, let there be no doubt about what the Red Sox need most, more than a warm reception or Wall balls or high, slicing flies that curl around Pesky's Pole.

What they need is a win.

Now nearly seven months removed from the worst September collapse in baseball history, the Red Sox return to Fenway Park with a 1-5 record this afternoon to face the Tampa Bay Rays, the team that effectively bounced the Red Sox from the postseason last autumn. The reception may be tepid. But this really is not about the response they receive so much as it is about how the Red Sox play, because the former will undoubtedly change more swiftly than the latter.

So here are the real questions the Red Sox should ask themselves as they take the field today, to boos or cheers or something somewhere in between:

Why are they underachieving? Is it solely because of pitching? Or are Sox players prepared to be completely honest about the things that have troubled them now for quite some time, for the things that have produced a positively dreadful 8-25 record in their last 33 games?

A little less than a week ago, respected ESPN baseball analyst Buster Olney became the latest to suggest there are still internal issues eating away at the Red Sox, who were indisputably fractured at the end of last season. Before being fired, manager Terry Francona spoke of being unable to "reach" certain players who had unfailingly responded to him; the Sox spent the weeks after the season issuing statements and denials about whether their pitchers were eating fried chicken in the clubhouse and perhaps even drinking beer in the dugout - during games, no less - all while ownership and upper management seemed to attribute the collapse to some sort of mathematical fluke.

Since that time, the Sox have changed general managers and managers, medical personnel and clubhouse attendants. What they haven't changed is ownership, upper management or the real core of the team, the latter of which has responded to the debacle of last September by producing the same results, continuing to play as if nothing were at stake.

Way to go, fellas. How to answer the bell and rise to the occasion. If and when you decide to start playing with a purpose - with commitment to your fans and each other - let us know.

Know what the real problem has been with the Red Sox in the last couple of years? Winning doesn't mean as much to them as it used to. Maybe the same is true of the fan base. John Henry wants to be in Liverpool. Josh Beckett wants to be a parent. The Red Sox have their rings and their guaranteed income - from the players to the owners - and so they seem to operate as if they have nothing to prove to anyone anymore, some of them going so far as to chalk it all up to God's will.

Well guess what, boys? Your credibility is on the line now. A disgruntled fan base is moving closer everyday to tuning you out and writing you off as that worst of all things - a waste of talent - and you're still quibbling over your individual selfish wants. Maybe you don't like your new manager. Maybe you find him disingenuous and self-promoting. But 10 years away from the major leagues has not taken away Bobby Valentine's energy or his passion for baseball or for winning, and we only wish we could say the same for you.

Over the last 100 years, in good years and in bad, Fenway Park has been a place where the Red Sox generally have excelled. They have defended their turf. Since the start of the 1912 season, the Red Sox have posted a higher home winning percentage (.571, an average home season of 46-35) than all but five franchises in baseball. During that period of time, precisely 38 franchises have played home games in the major leagues.

Under this ownership group, in particular, Fenway has been a place where opposing teams often have looked like the Red Sox look now - inept, apathetic, overmatched. Since John Henry and his partners took ownership of the club, the Red Sox are 506-304 at Fenway Park, a .625 winning percentage that translates into an annual home record of 51-30. (Only the New York Yankees have been better.) During that span, the Red Sox have scored more runs at home than any other team in the game, routinely turning in the kind of home performance that has made Fenway one of the most intimating ballparks in baseball for visiting teams.

Last season, for what it's worth, the Red Sox went an identical 45-36 at home and on the road. They were just 4-10 at Fenway Park in September, when their epic collapse reached its peak. Now they return to their home, their elixir, for the start of the 2012 season with lingering questions and issues from their dysfunctional 2012 finish, and they have yet another opportunity to turn things around, to set aside their petty issues, to start winning games the way they did during this indisputable Golden Age of modern Red Sox baseball.

If the Red Sox cannot win here, after all, they can't win anywhere.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

The lead was six with 22.3 seconds left when Paul Pierce stepped to the free throw line and made his first of two attempts. That was when Kevin Garnett positively knew, his right arm whipping back and forth as if he were thumping the bass drum in a marching band, his mouth, unsurprisingly, having little difficulty in keeping pace.

The Celtics are very much alive, it seems. And we now cannot help but wonder if those old dogs have one more run left in them after all?

A seven-game series is something altogether different, of course, but let's judge the Celtics on the here and now, on last night, on a game that should have, could have and would have been a blowout win for the Miami Heat if it were played, say, three months ago. The Celtics were reeling then. They looked old and worn. Boston was stuck in the chasm between the NBA's good and bad, the worst place to be for a team with too much talent and pride to stink, too many minutes and miles to shine.

But last night? The Celtics were 115-107 winners in a game that indisputably meant something, to them and the Heat both. Miami took note following a 91-72 pasting at the hands of the Celtics on April 1, but that game was played in Boston, at the TD Garden. The Heat were comatose that day. Everyone from Miami coach Erik Spoelstra to star Dwyane Wade seemed to make Tuesday night's game against the Celtics a resulting priority, Miami then racing to a 9-3 start as if intent on realigning the basketball universe.

The Celtics did then what battle-tested war horses do. They kept their cool. They hit back. And they kept right on hitting throughout the night, the final result an unconscious 60.6 team field goal percentage in the kind of win that shakes the foundation of an entire conference.

"They just kept throwing punches at us," Celtics coach Doc Rivers told reporters after the game. "We withstood them and kept moving forward. I thought that was important for our team."

A championship? Banner 18? Let's not go there quite yet, because the same questions exist for the Celtics now that existed two years ago, when the C's made an improbable, unlikely run to Game 7 of the finals. In fact, there are even more questions. The Celtics are still old, still undersized, and the playoffs are a grind unlike any other, no matter the scheduled days off. Last week, after dropping a one-point decision to the San Antonio Spurs on the Garden floor, the Celtics went to Chicago and were utterly listless the very next night, dropping a 93-86 decision to the Bulls in a game they should have won.

Come playoff time, rest assured there will be more nights like that night in Chicago. The Celtics will have to pick their spots. If and when the Celtics lead a series, they may have to sacrifice a game here or there, knowingly or unknowingly, because to do otherwise would lead to an early and unceremonious exit. Four series is still way too much to ask of this group, just as it was in May and June of 2010.

Nonetheless, let's give the Celtics their due for one very simple and indisputable fact: they are suggesting to us that it is at least possible again. They at least have a puncher's chance. Garnett is playing his best basketball in three years at least, confidence and attitude oozing from his game. Garnett was 5-for-5 last night in the fourth quarter alone, unhesitatingly knocking down four jumpers on four consecutive possessions during the middle of the fourth quarter when it appeared Miami was prepared to assume control.

As for Rajon Rondo, let last night serve as a lesson to anyone who has ever debated his real value to the Celtics. If Rondo could consistently shoot from the outside as he did last night, the Celtics never would have even considered a deal for Chris Paul. They would be downright unstoppable. Of Rondo's 11 shots last night, seven were jump shots from 16 feet or more. He made five of them, including a 3-pointer.

Whether Rondo can continue that is certainly debatable (he was just 5 of 8 from the line) but that is hardly the point. With the cast of shooters the Celtics have around him - LeBron James himself called the Celtics "the best jump-shooting team in the league" - Rondo doesn't need to. Skeptics would note that Rondo went 0-for-2 from the field and a mere 2-for-4 from the line in the fourth quarter, but he also had three assists and zero turnovers during a quarter his teammates went a combined 10 of 13 from the field and 3 of 3 from the line.

The point? Rondo doesn't have to make them all. He just has to be a threat to make enough.

On much grander level, we all know what last night's game meant because we all know how the NBA works. Entering last night, the Heat were a sterling 24-3 at home, the best mark in the NBA. Miami had beaten the Celtics five straight times in South Florida. Precisely one year ago to the day - April 10, 2011 - the Heat obliterated the Celtics by a 100-77 score at American Airlines Arena to secure Miami's only victory against the Celtics last season. Buoyed by that effort, the Heat then wiped out the Celtics in five games of an Eastern Conference semifinal series.

Until last night, the Celtics had not won again in Miami. They had really not beaten a true title contender on the road. Now, in the span of just 10 days, the Celtics have beaten Miami both at home and on the road, bookend victories of a six-game stretch during which the Celtics went 4-2 against Miami (twice), San Antonio, Chicago and Philadelphia - and the truth is that they very easily could have gone 6-0.

"It took a while but as long as we’re peaking at the right time," Rondo told reporters. "Our chemistry is growing each game, our confidence level each game."

Isn't yours?

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

In the last eight months, the Red Sox have changed managers and general managers, late-inning relievers and the medical staff. But the results remain constant. And there is plenty of blame to share.

So where do you turn now, Josh Beckett? Or you, John Henry? The 2012 Red Sox season has begun precisely the way the 2011 campaign ended, with the Red Sox disintegrating in a succession of forms and blunders. Sunday's 13-12 defeat at the hands of the Detroit Tigers was only the last in season-opening series that featured bullpen breakdowns, offensive struggles, atrocious starting pitching and suspect defense, a range of problems that makes it virtually impossible to blame one person or one thing.

The only relatively innocent bystander in this thus far? Manager Bobby Valentine, who must feel as if he has just stepped on board an ill-fated vessel.

So who is to blame?

Only everyone, beginning with:

* The players. After last September, one would have expected them to show up with some measure of shame, intent on proving their worth. Instead, Beckett was among those who showed up at spring training as seemingly defiant as ever, astonishingly detached from the events of late last summer and early fall.

People lost jobs, boys. Do you understand that? And we're not just talking about your manager. We're talking about trainers and clubhouse staff, the kind of working stiffs who actually need income and job security. And they lost them because of you.

For the players, here's the problem when a manager gets fired: there's no one else to blame now. Red Sox players have nowhere to run and nowhere to turn. Beckett should have come out on a mission, especially after the finish on Opening Day. Clay Buchholz should have done the same. Instead, the rotation still looks like Jon Lester (who at least took some responsibility) and four question marks.

OK, so the pitching takes most of the blame thus far. But until Sunday, the lineup hadn't done much, either.

* Theo Epstein. He's now in Chicago as general manager of the Cubs, but Epstein left behind quite a mess from his final years. In Carl Crawford, John Lackey, Bobby Jenks, Andrew Bailey (not a Theo acquisition, though) and Daisuke Matsuzaka, the Red Sox effectively have more than $60 million on the disabled list to open the year. (That includes a prorated part of Matsuzaka's posting fee, which must be considered part of the investment in him.) Meanwhile, the Red Sox' farm system has been laboring through a developmental hole, which means they had a few unproductive drafts.

As Larry Lucchino himself told us, the Red Sox have a payroll in the neighborhood of $185-$190 million. Take away the players on the DL and the number is actually closer to $125 million or so, although that is still enough to win. Nonetheless, Theo left behind more than his share of issues, sins for which the team is now paying.

* Ownership and upper management. Henry, Lucchino et al resent any suggestion that they cheaped out during the offseason, which is why Lucchino uncharacteristically told us about that historically high payroll during spring training. And truth be told, the Sox are not cheap. What they did over the winter, however, was to become more conservative than they have at any other point during this ownership's tenure, which raised some eyebrows.

In retrospect, can we all agree that the Sox placed an undue portion of the blame on Terry Francona, making no personnel shakeup in the aftermath of last September? Beckett stayed. It was as if the Sox believed that a managerial change and a few roster tweaks would fix the issues that came with a clubhouse full of entitled, overpaid superstars who clearly feel as if they have nothing to prove.

More than anything, the Red Sox needed innings last winter. Their solution to that problem was to move Daniel Bard into the rotation and pickup a pair of cheap relievers in Mark Melancon and Andrew Bailey. Melancon clearly isn't as good as the Sox thought he was, and Bailey has a history of injuries. Maybe someone like Aaron Cook will come up and help this team sooner rather than later, forcing Bard back into the bullpen.

Is Bard already a candidate to help?

"Might be," Valentine admitted to reporters following Sunday's game.

* Valentine. Let's be clear here: Bobby V. is a relatively innocent bystander in all of this because he has merely walked into a mess. However, in the wake of the Bailey injury, one of Valentine's first major maneuvers was to put Alfredo Aceves in the closer's role, a move that has already exploded into a ball of fire.

In the bullpen, the bottom line is that Valentine does not have the necessary horses at the moment. Still, from the outset, the problem with making Aceves the closer was that it threw the entire relief corps into a state of disarray. The Red Sox now have uncertainty throughout the late innings - from the sixth through the ninth - because Valentine moved three or four bodies around instead of moving one.

Aceves is no spring chicken. He entered this season with a career record of 24-3 because he has been a swingman on potent teams (Boston and New York) that used him in situations when the club was trailing. Pitching with a lead in the ninth inning is very different than pitching with a deficit in the sixth or seventh, and Aceves is perfect for that latter role.

On Sunday, Vicente Padilla filled the role of swingman brilliantly, but Valentine's decision to make Aceves his closer created more moving parts, not fewer. Maybe there is no right answer in the Boston bullpen at the moment - again, Valentine generally goes without blame - but the Sox need more stability, not less.

* Ben Cherington. Like Valentine, Cherington takes relatively little blame because he clearly had a limited budget to work with. (Let's be clear again that the players, ownership and upper management, and Epstein deserve the large majority of the blame here.) Still, the Sox clearly wanted to make trades during the offseason, their list of sacrifices including, among others, Jed Lowrie and Josh Reddick, players the Sox themselves had identified as borderline big leaguers.

Like last year, this Sox club has a decidedly stale, veteran feel to it. The only real addition of youth is Felix Doubront, who starts tonight in Toronto. On the field, beyond the manager, the Red Sox needed some kind of shakeup entering this season, and their general manager hasn't given it to them.

At least not yet.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

The Red Sox don't have the horses in the bullpen and everybody knows it. The only question now is how long the Red Sox can wait to address that shortage.

And whether they can really address it at all.

The Red Sox lost only one game in dropping their 2012 season opener to the Detroit Tigers on Thursday, so let's not put as much emphasis on the single defeat as we do the makeup of the Boston bullpen. Operating without Jonathan Papelbon, Daniel Bard or Andrew Bailey, Red Sox relievers allowed four hits and two earned runs in 1.1 innings while walking one batter and hitting another in a 3-2 defeat to the Detroit Tigers. Minus the six pitches thrown by lefthander Franklin Morales, the trio of Vicente Padilla, Mark Melancon and Alfredo Aceves needed just two-thirds of an inning to do more damage than a herd of locust.

Already, the relievers are eating away at the confidence and morale of this team.

Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington and skipper Bobby Valentine both are new to their respective jobs this spring, but neither is a fool. They know what they have here. Among the group of Aceves, Padilla, Melancon and Morales, not a single one has a real proven track record of late-inning success in the major leagues. The subsequent mismatch Boston faces in the late innings is beyond intimidating, leaving the Sox particularly shorthanded against the better teams in what is now a deep American League.

Think about it. If the Sox and Yankees are close going into the seventh inning, do the Red Sox have relievers who can match zeroes with David Robertson, Rafael Soriano and Mariano Rivera? Can they do the same with the Angels, Rangers or Rays? On Thursday, the Sox actually got to Detroit closer Jose Valverde for a pair of runs, and even that was not good enough.

The Red Sox can't match arms in the late innings, folks. At least not with a group like the one they have. Melancon, Aceves and Padilla might make for a formidable trio in a place like Kansas City or Pittsburgh, but that's not going to cut it in the American League East.

Go ahead and run down the full list of names in the Boston bullpen. Aceves? He has proven to be the perfect swingman on a championship-caliber team, but really nothing more. (Dare we compare him to Ramiro Mendoza?) Melancon has had one productive year in the major leagues - with a wretched team (the Houston Astros, who took Jed Lowrie for him) that lost 106 games last season in a bad division. Padilla is a problematic 34-year-old journeyman with his fifth team. Morales has walked almost five batters per nine innings for his career.

The rest of the group includes Michael Bowden, Justin Thomas, Matt Albers and Scott Atchison. That ain't exactly Fingers, Gossage, Eckersley and Sutter.

When you get right down to it, the Sox have two choices here. In the coming weeks and months, they can tread water and try to make trades with teams that have zero chance of contending. Or they can just bite the bullet and move Bard back into the bullpen as soon as someone like Aaron Cook is ready to pitch in major league games.

Regardless, given the shortage of talent in the Boston bullpen, it suddenly seems hard to imagine a scenario in which Bard finishes the season in the Boston rotation. Even if Bailey comes back and pitches effectively late in the year, the Sox will need him and Bard in the late innings if they intend to make a run at the playoffs or, dare we say, a championship.

Lest you think this is all some sort of overreaction, let's go back to the last time the Red Sox had a bullpen quite like this one: 2003. The Sox opened that season with their ill-fated closer-by-committee experiment, which is the sabermetric way of saying they had no closer at all. Then-manager Grady Little opened the season with a cast of characters that included Mendoza, Mike Timlin, Alan Embree and Chad Fox, among others, but it was Brandon Lyon who was closing games before long.

Know what happened that year? General manager Theo Epstein traded for Byung-Hyun Kim in May. Then he signed Todd Jones as a free agent. Then he traded for Scott Williamson in July in a hilarious reversal of philosophy - the Sox going from a philosophy of having no real closer to having three of them (with at least some success in the role) over the span of two months.

Thanks to an offense that set the major league record for slugging percentage in a single season, the Sox made the playoffs that year. Even then, starter Derek Lowe had to close out Game 5 of the AL Division Series against the Oakland A's because Little was still searching for answers. (Little ultimately got stability in the AL Championship Series against the Yankees before, well ... let's stop there.)

After that year, the Sox signed a real closer in Keith Foulke. The next season, they won the World Series.

The morale of the story? There is no replacement for talent, particularly in the late innings. Men like Timlin and Embree were serviceable relievers and legitimate major league talents who helped the Sox, but they had to be in the right roles (just like Melancon and Aceves).The moment the Sox nailed down the back end of the bullpen, their entire relief corps got infinitely better.

So where are the Sox going to get a closer now? Excellent question. Maybe someone will emerge from the minor leagues, as Papelbon did in late 2005. Maybe Cherington can somehow trade for one. Maybe Cherington's plan from the very beginning was to trade for a starter in June or July, then move Bard to the bullpen to augment a group that could now get Bailey back at roughly the same time.

In the interim, what the Red Sox have out there simply is not good enough.

And their season hangs in the balance.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

In baseball, especially, you generally get what you pay for, which in the case of the Red Sox is a closer with a history of injury. Andrew Bailey is gone for months, not weeks, and even then there is no assurance that he will be able to stay on the field whenever he comes back.

In his absence, the Red Sox need to find a closer while keeping the rest of their bullpen generally intact, a task that might be easier than many would like to believe.

So here's a candidate for you:

Vicente Padilla.

Now 34, Padilla went 1-0 with one save and a 3.29 ERA in seven appearances covering 13.2 innings for the Red Sox this spring. He struck out 11 and walked one. Spring numbers mean relatively nothing, of course, and they are offered here solely as some indication that Padilla threw the ball well during camp. In a March 13 appearance against the Yankees in Tampa, Padilla struck out four and did not walk a batter in three hitless innings against the Yankees, at times looking downright dominant.

Give him the ball in the ninth, Bobby V. See how it goes. If Padilla blows a couple early, you can always switch to a more traditional plan. But trying Padilla in the closer's role makes sense on so many levels that it's worth a roll of the dice.

By now, we all know that closers are frequently made, not born. Many of them are converted starters. Dennis Eckersley, John Wetteland, Joe Nathan, and John Smoltz are just a handful of names on the list of those who have made the transition near or after the age of 30. More than anything else, closing takes a combination of stuff and mindset, a pairing Padilla seems to possess based on how he threw the ball this spring.

Here's another thing a closer needs: control. Late in games, particularly, walks are a killer. For the most part, Padilla has had decent control during his career, at times throwing the ball with good precision.

Now the obvious question: why Padilla over Mark Melancon or Alfredo Aceves, the former of whom had 20 saves for the Houston Astros last season and the latter of whom has been borderline brilliant since the Red Sox acquired him? Because the Red Sox bullpen sets up better if Valentine can leave each in his current role. Melancon had a poor spring, which would be meaningless if it were not for the fact that many doubted his ability to close to begin with. (Some of us doubted whether Melancon was truly for cut for the eighth inning, believing he is better suited for the sixth or seventh.) And Aceves has such great versatility that he is invaluable anywhere from the sixth through the eighth, possessing the ability to pitch as many as all three on any given night.

By most accounts, Valentine could go with any combination of Melancon, Aceves and Padilla in the final three innings. On some level all three would make sense. No succession of those pitchers is necessarily wrong. But putting Melancon first and Padilla last allows Valentine to maximize the abilities of all three, assuming Padilla is up to the task.

Here's the one major concern with Padilla: left-handed batters. Historically during his career, Padilla has had trouble with lefties, largely because he is a fastball-breaking ball pitcher with nothing that runs toward the third base of home plate. Of course, the same could be said of Daniel Bard, whose development and implementation of his changeup may be the key to any success he has as a starter.

In short relief, Bard often got away with two pitches. Maybe Padilla can do the same, particularly given an intense disposition that borders of craziness -- Aceves is similar in some ways -- which could make him the perfect candidate for the job.

On a grander scale, let's understand how the Red Sox got themselves into this mess, something they have not really experienced since Papelbon took over for the deteriorating Keith Foulke in the earliest stages of the 2006 season. Papelbon finished that year on the disabled list, but it was the only time during his six full seasons in Boston that he went on the DL. (Bailey couldn't even get out of his first spring healthy.) Add Papelbon's departure onto a list of factors that included a self-imposed payroll restraint thanks to dead money -- thank you, John Lackey, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Bobby Jenks and Theo Epstein -- and the Red Sox were put in the unenviable position of needing both innings (in their rotation) and a new closer.

So how did the Sox solve it? They took the most cost-efficient way out. They moved Bard into the rotation and acquired both Melancon and Bailey (combined salaries: about $4.5 million) by trade, all before shedding the contract of Marco Scutaro to make the numbers all work.

Now, the biggest acquisition of general manager Ben Cherington's inaugural offseason already has gone poof, thrusting the Sox into a relative fire drill before having played a single game.

Fine. Stuff happens. But if the Sox had just invested, say, in someone like Hiroki Kuroda on a one-year deal -- something the Sox have indicated they were always willing to do -- they could still have Bard (with Melancon, Aceves and others) in the bullpen and their rotation intact. Instead, the Sox are now so committed to Bard in a starter's role that they are intent on keeping him there (the right move -- at least for now), which leaves the bullpen in a rather unsettled state.

Again, it is important to remember what Cherington's approach was over the winter. Rather than signing one starter for $10 million or so, the Sox went out and secured, among others, Padilla, Aaron Cook and Carlos Silva on a bunch of low-risk contracts, hoping one of them would pan out if and when there is a need in the rotation. By all accounts, a rehabilitating Cook is not quite ready yet. Silva barely made it into spring before he broke down. Bailey now looks like yet another acquisition in a lot of damaged goods, all because the Red Sox opted to buy in bulk.

And we haven't even mentioned Chris Carpenter, the broken pitcher whom the Sox received as compensation for Epstein.

Just wondering: did the Sox invest in any, um, healthy pitchers?

OK, so that's a jab. But you get the idea. Suddenly, Padilla looks like one of the few healthy pitchers (for now) that Cherington picked up during the offseason, the only real man on the Opening Day roster for whom the Sox did not have a pre-assigned role. Bard, Felix Doubront, Melancon, and Aceves were all expected to fill specific roles, as was Bailey, who is now out of the mix until roughly the All-Star break.

Rather than shuffling bodies throughout their entire pitching staff then, the Sox should just place Padilla in the closer's role for now and see how it goes. If it fails, they will merely be back in the same situation they are now.

But if it works, they will have seamlessly replaced the injury-prone Andrew Bailey without tinkering with their entire staff or bullpen.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

For the moment, let's put aside titles and numbers, identifying the starters in the Boston pitching rotation for what they truly are. Relatively speaking, little will be expected of Felix Doubront. More will be asked of Jon Lester and Josh Beckett.

But the success of the 2012 Red Sox may very well hinge on the performance of Clay Buchholz and Daniel Bard.

Surprising no one, the Red Sox formally announced their season-opening rotation yesterday, placing Doubront and Bard (in that order) behind the front three of Lester, Beckett and Buchholz. That arrangement prevents left-handers Doubront and Lester from making turns on consecutive days, so do not get caught up in No. 4 vs. No. 5, or who pitches when. What matters more than anything is how the starters pitch, particularly when it comes to Buchholz and Bard.

Last year, remember, the Red Sox finished ninth in the American League in ERA from their starting pitchers, a positively wretched development given that the Sox have more than $300 million in long-term deals tied up in Lester, Beckett, Lackey, Daisuke Matsuzaka and John Lackey. The last two of those men will miss a chunk (Matsuzaka) or all (Lackey) of this season, and there is little way to project how Matsuzaka will perform if and when he comes back.

Now consider this: as badly as the Red Sox tanked last year - and they tanked historically - Lester and Beckett were still a combined 28-16 with a 3.18 ERA. In tandem, Lester and Beckett averaged 8.4 strikeouts and 3.0 walks per nine innings pitchd, the kind of numbers that will produce a lot of victories when you hit the way the Red Sox do.

So what was the problem?

Lester and Beckett went belly-up in Serptember.

And when they did, nobody even came close to picking up the slack.

If you are among those who believe the Red Sox lack a true ace in vein of Justin Verlander, Felix Hernandez or C.C. Sabathia, you are hardly off base. But that's not the point. Lester and Beckett caved when the Red Sox needed them most last season, but part of the reason the Red Sox needed them so badly was because their rotation was utterly inept once the club got past the first two pitchers.

Maybe that means Lackey, Tim Wakefield, Andrew Miller and Kyle Weiland were to blame. Maybe it means the Sox were unlucky, Buchholz and Matsuzaka essentially going down to season-ending injuries. Maybe it is a combination of all the above, a shortage of depth exploited as the year went along.

Beyond Lester and Beckett, Red Sox starters made 101 starts last season, a number that translates into roughly 62 percent of the team's schedule. Combined, those starters went 36-34 despite a 5.40 ERA, their won-lost record an obvious testament to the potent Boston offense. Lest anyone forget, those numbers include a 6-3 record and 3.48 ERA from Buchholz, who made 14 starts before a back injury derailed his season.

Still, you get the idea. From April through August, with Lackey or Beckett on the mound the Red Sox were capable of beating anyone. But for pretty much the entire season, particularly after Buchholz went down, the Nos. 3, 4 and 5 spots were wildly erratic, posting a 5.40 ERA that would have ranked dead last among the 14 teams in the American League.

Generally speaking, for about 38 percent of their games, the Red Sox had a starting pitcher on the mound nearly as good as anyone. But for 62 percent of the time, they might as well have been the Baltimore Orioles (whose starters had a 5.39 ERA for the year).

All of this brings us back to Buchholz and Bard, both enormous variables for different reasons. Each has the stuff of a 15-game winner (or more). Each comes with huge question marks. In the case of Buchholz, the obvious concern is durability following a season-ending back injury to a body shaped like a breadstick.

Since the start of 2012, among all major league pitchers with at least 20 victories, only four rank ahead of Buchholz in ERA: Roy Halladay, Adam Wainwright, Clayton Kershaw and Weaver. Buchholz has the stuff and numbers of ace, assuming he can take the mound as scheduled.

Which is a big assumption.

Bard, meanwhile, similarly comes with questions of durability, largely because he has never pitched more than 74.2 innings in a professional career spent almost entirely as a reliever. Still, the upside is huge. If Bard can effectively make the transition from the bullpen to the rotation - and again, that is a big if - the Red Sox stand to have made one of the biggest pitching acquisitions.

Over the winter, the Red Sox' approach was obvious. Pitching was scarce on the free agent market, and the Sox were not inclined to go to four years and nearly $60 million for someone like the durable Mark Buehrle. Operating with self-imposed budget restrictions, the Sox opted to move Bard to the rotation and plug their bullpen through trades for inexpensive relievers (Mark Melancon, Andrew Bailey), all while bringing in a host of low-risk candidates (Vicente Padilla, Aaron Cook, Brandon Duckworth and the injured Carlos Silva) who might be needed if and when someone goes down.

If and when that happens, any of those last few pitchers could help the Red Sox in the short term.

But in the long, their best chance at success rests with Buchholz and Bard, two men who might very well be the most important members of the Opening Day roster.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

Three straight and 5 of 6, and the Celtics since the All-Star break are now a relatively robust 13-5. The obvious question: are they for real?

Tell you what, let's all agree to reserve definitive judgment on that for about two weeks.

In the interim, enjoy the continuation of the Celtics' renaissance (however brief) tonight, when the Celtics play the Minnesota Timberwolves in what will all but officially mark the end of the club's recent trek through the D League. The Celtics have been playing better of late, for certain, and there are those of us who believe the Celtics could at least throw a scare into one of the two favorites in the Eastern Conference (hint: not Miami) if and when the teams were to meet in the playoffs.

And if Kevin Garnett continues to play like a rejuvenated man.

And if Ray Allen is healthy.

And if Rajon Rondo can reasonably counterbalance Derrick Rose (another hint).

A final run at a championship? Heavens no. Please. That is hardly what anyone is suggesting. The ceiling for this Celtics club is probably the second round of the playoffs. Anything else would border on a stunning development. And that will remain true unless the Celtics do something in the next two weeks that will force us to re-evaluate the last four.

At the moment, much is being made of the Celtics' 13-5 record since the All-Star break, a resume that includes victories over a cast of teams that might just as well include the Albany Patroons and Bay State Bombardiers. The last 13 Celtics victims, in fact, are a combined 91 games under .500 at the moment, a number that only lends further credence to the argument that the Celtics are smack dab in the middle of the NBA population.

They lose to the good teams. They beat the bad ones.

Ask yourselves this question: what is the Celtics' best win of the season? The Sunday overtime game against the Knicks? The late comeback against Houston at the TD Garden? The victory over the Clippers on the second night of shows on consecutive nights at the Staples Center? All were good victories, to be sure. But the Celtics still have not had a great win all season, not really, not against the kind of club that will be contending for a championship.

Which brings us back to the next two weeks.

Following tonight's game at Minnesota - no gimme, by the way - take a good look at the Celtics' schedule beginning on Sunday: Miami, San Antonio, at Chicago, at Indiana, Philadelphia, at Miami. So far this year, the Celtics are a combined 2-7 against those clubs, their only victories coming at home against Indiana and Chicago, the latter a game in which Rose did not play. Boston may be tied with Philadelphia for first place in the Atlantic Division, but the Celtics are 0-2 against the Sixers this season with only one game remaining (in Boston on April 8).

Know what that means? The Sixers win the tiebreaker. If the season ended today, the Celtics would still be the No. 7 seed and draw Miami in the first round.

Good night, Irene.

Bedtime for Bonzo.

Here is what we have really learned about the Celtics over the last few weeks, if anything: at the end of this renaissance, as in the beginning, Garnett remains the single greatest factor in their success. He drove the bus during the championship run in 2008 and he is driving it now. For as well as Rajon Rondo played in the earlier part of this season, especially, the Celtics are 12-6 when he scores fewer than 10 points. Everyone gets excited when Rondo starts racking up numbers, but they don't necessarily translate into wins.

But when Garnett plays well, the Celtics are completely different team, particularly on the defensive end of the floor.

Of course, we all knew the reality when Garnett and Ray Allen joined the Celtics during the summer of 2007. The window was to be three years in length, maximum, and the Celtics made it to the NBA Finals twice during that span. We are now in Year 5 of the three-year plan. What the Celtics have shown of late certainly warrants some level of acknowledgment given the age and performance of Garnett, in particular, but none of it changes anything with regard to the spring and beyond.

Unless, of course, the Celtics are still winning with the same regularity two weeks from now.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

Theo Epstein left behind a great deal of good when he cut ties with the Red Sox, but Bobby Jenks now remains as one of his biggest blunders. For $12 million over two years, the Red Sox have gotten nothing from Jenks. And the ramifications of the signing are still being felt.

In truth, this has nothing to do with Jenks being arrested last week for allegedly driving under the influence, regardless of whether he passed the breathalyzer. (Let the record show that at least once during his career, Jenks actually put up zeroes.) In 19 games for the Red Sox last season, Jenks posted a 6.32 ERA. In 15.2 innings, he allowed 22 hits and 15 walks. Opponents batted .328 against him with an .870 OPS, all while Jenks shuttled to and from the disabled list with a body far more suited for, say, logging.

And know what the really sad part is? Because Jenks hasn’t been here very long - and because he never made any real contribution whatsoever - he sneaks by relatively free of scorn and criticism. Josh Beckett, for example, has taken far more abuse than Jenks has, and Beckett is merely at the top of a very long list. But what is there really good to say about Jenks, whose stint with the Red Sox has been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster and who clearly doesn’t take his career seriously?

Consider...

* The alternative. Like many in baseball, the Red Sox under Epstein argued that the performance of relievers is difficult to forecast, which is why the Sox have refrained from multiyear deals for relievers. As such, the Sox stopped short on someone like left-hander Scott Downs, who was a free agent at the same time Jenks was and who would have filled an enormous hole in the Boston bullpen.

Downs ended up getting three years and $15 million from the Los Angeles Angels, for whom he posted a 1.34 ERA in 60 appearances last year; lefties hit .179 against him while righties batted .214. Yes, Downs turned 36 earlier this month, but the Angels already have gotten far more out of Downs than the Red Sox will get out of Jenks.

Here’s the point: the Red Sox were willing to give $6 million a year to someone like Jenks, whose performance and body deteriorated in Chicago, while balking at $5 million per year for a lefty who takes far better care of himself, as if using some mathematical formula for risk analysis instead of considering the actual pitchers involved.

Maybe Downs will blow out his elbow or shoulder tomorrow. He still would have been a better signing than Jenks. And if Downs were in the bullpen now, the Red Sox may not be scrambling to find at least one healthy and effective left-handed reliever whom they could employ in the bullpen.

* The theory. In signing Jenks, the Red Sox were clearly considering the long term as much as the short. The obvious idea was for Jenks to serve as a set-up man for Jonathan Papelbon for one season - assuming the Sox didn’t trade Papelbon, which they tried to - and then have him take over as a closer. Instead, Jenks failed miserably and couldn’t stay healthy - what a shock - while the Red Sox pitching staff crumbled at the end of the 2011 season.

With regard to September, Jenks had a big hand in the collapse. Had he been able to stay healthy during the year, Daniel Bard might not have pitched in 70 games and amassed a whopping nine losses, including four in September. Instead of being stuck in the bullpen while Kyle Weiland was making starts in a pennant race - much to the chagrin of people like David Ortiz - Alfredo Aceves might have been starting games and fortifying a rotation that was in complete disrepair.

If that weren’t enough, the ripples carried into the offseason. Papelbon obviously was gone regardless of Jenks’ presence, but Jenks’ problems meant that the Sox had to go out and rebuild their bullpen. Trades were made for both Mark Melancon and Andrew Bailey, neither of whom might be here if Jenks had been able to come to Boston and “resurrect” his career at the age of 30.

* The money. On a team with a payroll approaching $185-$190 million, an annual salary of $6 million might not seem like much, particularly in comparison to, say, John Lackey ($16.5 million) and Carl Crawford ($20.3 million). But at least those guys made some contribution. Even J.D. Drew gave the Red Sox something during his time here. But Jenks’ $6 million might as well have been kindling, and the amount should not be trivialized.

Here’s why: Just prior to the start of spring training, the Red Sox traded away Marco Scutaro to save anywhere from $4-$6 million, depending on how you do the math. (If Scutaro were here, Mike Aviles or Nick Punto would not be, etc.) And if the Sox still elected to trade Scutaro, they could have used his money (or Jenks’) now on a starting pitcher instead of having to pinch pennies with their eye on the trading deadline.

So you know what the Sox opted to do instead this winter? They chose to make Bard a starter, which may or may not take, in part because it was a cost-efficient option. That has subsequently created so many spring questions in the bullpen that there is already speculation of Bard going back - before the Sox even play a real game.

Obviously, the Red Sox weren’t going to gain on Jenks on both ends. If they had signed Downs, for example, they still would have had payroll issues. (Or so they say.) If Jenks had pitched well, they could have more easily transferred Bard to the rotation and kept the trading chips from either the Melancon or Bailey deals. But as it has turned out, the Sox have gotten absolutely nothing from Jenks, the rotund pitcher becoming exactly what he looks like on the mound.

A big zero.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

Sprinkling the infield with a little sunshine, a little rain, and a whole lot of fertilizer ...

In the wake of their collapse, beating up on the New York Jets is the fashionable thing to do, just as it was to beat up on the 2011 Red Sox. The teams share some similarities, and they still share them entering their respective 2012 seasons.

Which is why neither should be dismissed.

Let's start with the Jets, who are now being mocked for being so downright stupid as to take on Tim Tebow, whom they acquired from the Denver Broncos for essentially a fourth-round pick. Why is this so dumb? The Jets have an inconsistent quarterback in what is now, more than ever, a quarterback league, and they failed in any pursuit of Peyton manning, however brief. So what were they supposed to do? Go into next season with the same situation at quarterback and offense that has proven insufficient for three years?

Here's what Tebow gives the Jets: options. New York isn't going to win a Super Bowl solely with its passing attack, and the Jets still may not win one now, either. But if the Jets are being truthful by saying about Drew Stanton is still their backup quarterback, then Tebow could provide them with an offensive wrinkle the way Kordell Stewart once did for the Steelers.

And there are these factors: Sanchez, who has been babied since he arrived in New York, needs competition, be it from Stanton or Tebow. And the Jets clearly need character in a locker room that badly lacked it, which something Tebow absolutely, positively possesses in bulk.

After all, look at the impact Tebow had on last year's Broncos, who quickly became believers once he began to play.

* Some of us still would have liked to see the Patriots invest in a true impact player on defense, but it's hard to argue too much with what the Patriots have done thus far in free agency. While retaining Wes Welker, Deion Branch, Dan Connolly and Wes Welker, among others, the Patriots now have added Brandon Lloyd, Daniel Fells, Robert Gallery, Jonathan Fanene, Trevor Scott, Will Allen, Donte Stallworth, Anthony Gonzalez, Steve Gregory and Spencer Larsen. Some of those players will prove to be nothing more than names in a pile of bodies, but the New England passing attack suddenly looks as prolific as ever.

At the moment, three questions remain -- two more significant than the other: the defense, the left side of the offensive line and, to a lesser extent, running back. (Fare thee well, Benjarvus Green-Ellis.) With Logan Mankins injured and Matt Light potentially calling it a career, Tom Brady's blindside is currently in question, with or without Gallery and Nate Solder. As for the defense, one can only hope the Patriots are planning to be aggressive in the draft, where they have two first-round selections and two second-round selections.

Could that be at least part of the reason the Patriots asked Brady to restructure his contract and free up even more salary cap space?

* We all have every right to criticize the Red Sox and question their character in the aftermath of last season, but let's not get silly. The Red Sox are not going to go 83-79. From May 13 through Aug. 31 of last season, the Red Sox went 66-32, a .673 winning percentage that translates into a 109-win pace over a 162-game schedule. There is plenty of talent to win. What this all comes down to is attitude and health, both of which are legitimately in question.

But talent? The Red Sox have plenty. In fact, they still have far more than most.

* Given Bobby Valentine's recent remarks about criticizing his players, can't help but wonder when Valentine said Yankees manager Joe Girardi wasn't very "courteous" in pulling the plug on Thursday night's tie game, was that a fact or an opinion?

* Maybe it has something to do with the preponderance of people in this business from the Newhouse School of Communications, but does anyone else find Syracuse alumni to be disproportionately annoying? We're not saying Syracuse folks have quite entered the arena of Boston College, Duke, and Notre Dame folks, but for a school and program that has been smeared by a succession of scandals of late, Syracuse alums ought to be more red faces and fewer of that unsightly orange clothing.

* The New Orleans Saints got what they deserved, plain and simple. Placing prices on the heads of opposing players is disgraceful to begin with, and lying to cover it up is just as bad.

But as long as Drew Brees stays in uniform, the Saints are going to be a huge factor in the NFC South, especially when New Orleans' out-of-conference schedule features the AFC West.

Of course, New Orleans also has to play the NFC East.

* Peyton Manning immediately makes the Denver Broncos the favorite in the pathetic AFC West, but Denver's schedule in 2012 in hardly a cupcake. Thanks to its first place finish, Denver will face New England and Houston this season. Additionally, the Broncos have both the NFC South and the AFC North on their schedule, which means meetings with Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati. New Orleans and Atlanta, among others.

* We all know that Jose Iglesias probably is not quite ready to hit consistently in the major leagues, but many of us believe the Sox should give Iglesias the nod to start the year with the big club. The Sox can carry one fewer pitcher in the early going, anyway, and the team would benefit a great deal from having a young potentially dynamic player on its roster -- even if Iglesias is only dynamic on defense -- to start the season.

Think about it: when was the last time the Red Sox had a rookie everyone could truly get excited about? Jacoby Ellsbury certainly comes to mind, but that was four years ago. When the Atlanta Braves were at the peak of their reign during the `90s, the Braves liked to integrate about two new starters every three years, turning over the stock and keeping the team infused.

Particularly in the wake of last year, the Red Sox could use the positive energy and bounce Iglesias would bring. The team has too many overpriced veterans to begin with. If Iglesias proves overmatched offensively, the Sox can subsequently send him down to the minors, still leaving open for the possibility of a return late in the season.

What would be wrong with that?

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

What Bobby Valentine surely knows, as does most any manager, is that he is only as good as his bullpen. In the modern major leagues, after all, a manager's in-game skill is most important in the late innings, where games, pennants and championships are often won and lost.

Based on his past and reputation, Bobby Valentine has the skill.

The question this year is whether he has the horses.

And so roughly two weeks before the Red Sox begin their 2012 season, for all of the talk about the starting pitching and clubhouse antics, relatively little has been said about a Red Sox bullpen that has undergone more significant changes than any other area of the team. Jonathan Papelbon is gone and Daniel Bard seems destined for the rotation. Mark Melancon and Andrew Bailey now serve as the final legs in what Valentine hopes will be a relatively smooth relay race.

Earlier this week, Valentine indicated the Red Sox have reached that stage of camp where roles must be refined, decisions made. Where the Red Sox begin is very different from where they end, of course, but the departure of Papelbon alone introduces questions the Sox have not had in some time.

Specifically: how long do they wait to make a change if things go awry?

And what is Plan B?

Here's what we know (or what we believe we know): barring an unexpected change, Bard will be in the rotation, if for no other reason than the fact that the Red Sox need the innings. That leaves the last two innings to Messrs. Melancon and Bailey, each of whom is fully capable of success. We all know that a strong start is imperative for the Sox in the wake of last September's epic, historic collapse, but nowhere is that truer than in the back end of a bullpen that has been completely revamped.

How's that for irony? Neither Melancon nor Bailey had anything to do with what happened here last September. But if those two men are not on their games to start the season, either could easily undermine the success of the team, particularly in the early going.

This year, more than any other in recent memory, the Sox need a strong start. Purely for the sakes of morale and fan support, they have to play well early. (As a result, many of us believe they will.) But anyone who remembers the Red Sox of 2002, 2003, or 2005 knows that nothing can undermine a club's confidence (and season) like an unreliable relief corps - and the Red Sox of early 2012 absolutely, positively do not need to be blowing games in the late innings during April.

That is why there is seemingly no chance of Bard and Alfredo Aceves both being in the Boston bullpen despite the fact that Boston's best five-man rotation would include both. The Red Sox need at least one of them in the bullpen to support Melancon and Bailey to start the year, and it could even be that one supplants Melancon as the primary set-up man in the eighth inning.

The real problem comes if the Red Sox end up needing both of them in the bullpen.

Or if Bailey, who will almost certainly be the closer to start, explodes in a ball of fire.

That last scenario, in particular, poses an interesting scenario, if for no other reason than that the Red Sox have not really had any kind of closer controversy since the start of the 2006 season. Even then, Terry Francona pulled the plug quickly on Keith Foulke and put the ball in the hands of Papelbon, who never so much as teetered. The first time Papelbon ever really encountered any serious problems as closer came in 2010, by which point Bard had emerged as a dominating setup man and a seeming succession plan was in place.

Even then, Papelbon never really seemed at risk of losing the job.

But now? Stability in the bullpen is a huge question, even if solely for the fact that everything is new. New closer. New setup man. New pitching coach and manager. Will Valentine and Bob McClure be as patient and methodical as Francona and, say, John Farrell were? Do they have any reason to be? Francona trusted Papelbon implicitly because he won with him, and Valentine simply does not have that kind of history or track record with anybody on this Boston team, let alone two relievers who have yet to play their first games with the club.

Should Bailey or Melancon struggle early, Valentine will immediately be faced with an important decision, particularly if Bard also is slow out of the gate (as a starter). Would the Red Sox then be better served to put Bard back in the bullpen, even if for the eighth inning? Would Valentine even consider closing with him? And if the Red Sox always believed that Bard was the closer-in-waiting behind Papelbon - something very debatable to some of us more than others - then why did they acquire Bobby Jenks before last season and make Bard a starter before this one?

In baseball, as in any sport, no statistic is absolute. For every rule, there is an exception. But generally speaking in this day and age, teams that rack up bullpen losses almost never, ever succeed. Think about it. A bullpen loss means that a team was either winning or tied entering the late innings, and the best teams simply do not give away games at the most critical times.

In 2004, when the Red Sox won the World Series, their bullpen finished with just 17 losses, fifth-fewest in baseball, fourth-fewest in the American League. (The latter is a better indicator because the absence of a designated hitter inevitably leads to more relief appearances in the NL as a result of hitting for the pitcher.) In 2007, Sox relievers had the third-fewest losses in baseball, second-fewest in the AL. The Sox of the last two years have dipped into the middle of the pack in that area - and they have not made the playoffs in either season.

And so this year, perhaps unsurprisingly, the back of the bullpen is entirely new.

Now the Sox just have to make sure they change the results, too.

By Tony Massarotti

With the Patriots, particularly with regard to free agency, some measure of temperance is required. We all want the big splash. We rarely get it. So the question really concerns whether coach Bill Belichick is addressing those areas we all want him to address.

At the moment, Belichick certainly appears to be doing that, albeit with a cast of characters who carry varying degrees of risk.

While the easy thing is to sit here today and feel good about what was, if nothing else, an active weekend on the football front - I like what they're doing is what the optimists say - here is the truth: we don't really know whether the Patriots had a good weekend or a bad one. On paper, the Patriots have taken at least some steps to address their needs on offense and defense, the most notable acquisition coming in the form of wide receiver Brandon Lloyd. Even with the uncertain status of running back BenJarvus Green-Ellis, the offense certainly looks to have improved, assuming Lloyd does not have trouble integrating into the offense the way Chad Ochocinco did.

In terms of pass-catching options next season, quarterback Tom Brady now has Lloyd to go along with Wes Welker, Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, not to mention Danny Woodhead. The Patriots will score, as always, and they will win as a result of it the large majority of the time.

All of that brings us back to the defense, which remains the top priority and the No. 1 reason the Patriots have not won a championship in seven years despite, perhaps, one of the three greatest decision-makers at quarterback in the history of the league. Certainly, the Patriots defense showed signs of improvement in the playoffs last year, but New England's inability to get off the field in Super Bowl XLVI was one of the primary reasons the Pats once again finished as runners-up to the New York Giants.

Remember, folks: the Baltimore Ravens controlled the ball in the AFC Championship game, too, holding an advantage in time of possession of roughly seven minutes. (That is basically half of one quarter.)

Defensively, clearly, Belichick has a philosophy: over the last two seasons now, he has focused on players who have something to prove. Last year it was Albert Haynesworth, Mark Anderson and Andre Carter. So far this season, it's defensive end/linebacker Trevor Scott and, to an extent, defensive lineman Jonathan Fanene. The latter played in 12 games last season and finished with 6.5 sacks, but he is a former seventh-round draft pick whose greatest asset is clearly his toughness and, as football people like to say, his motor. Scott, meanwhile, is a former sixth-rounder who has not been the same since a knee injury suffered during the 2010 season, which makes him precisely the kind of guy Belichick loves.

Here's the problem: someone like Scott could prove to be Mark Anderson. He could also prove to be Derrick Burgess. Andre Carter and Anderson worked out well last year, but Haynesworth was a colossal bust. Belichick wins some and loses some with this kind of approach, and the only real question now is whether a true impact signing on defense could be the piece that puts the Patriots over the top.

Even someone like safety LaRon Landry is a huge variable because he has played in just 17 games over the last two seasons. Ditto for wide receiver Anthony Gonzalez. The names sound good, but what the Patriots really need is the impact.

Obviously, for Belichick, free agency only is a part of the equation, and the Adalius Thomas fiasco proved that big-ticket players can prove to be unmotivated. There is legitimate cause for concern there. Maybe Belichick has the cornerstones of his defense in place with Vince Wilfork, Jerod Mayo and, perhaps, Patrick Chung and Devin McCourty, but New England's defense generally has looked no better than mediocre over at least the last two seasons, which brings us to the most important part of Belichick's team-building options this winter.

The draft.

Next month, more than perhaps any other in Belichick's tenure, we may get some answers with regard to how the Patriots regard the draft. The rookie wage scale is now in place. The Patriots have four selections in the first two rounds, including two first-rounders at Nos. 27 (from New Orleans) and 31. Since drafting Wilfork in 2004, Belichick has only taken one defensive player in the front seven during the first round of the draft, that being Mayo in 2008. The rest of the time, the Patriots have either selected a different position or traded out of the first round entirely, a theory that we all have attributed to the team's never-ending quest for value.

Thanks to the wage scale and New England's seemingly endless regeneration of draft picks, the Pats now seem perfectly positioned to strike. Belichick could simply use the picks he has. Or he could trade up. Nobody would lament New England's approach in free agency if the Patriots now aggressively attack the draft, all with the idea of giving quarterback Tom Brady the necessary support from his defense as Brady enters the final years of his career.

But what if the Patriots back off again next month and stockpile picks for future years, taking as controlled approach to the draft as they do to free agency? What will that tell us?

Indeed, in the coming hours, days, and weeks, a great deal could still change on the NFL landscape. Peyton Manning will make his decision. Tim Tebow may change uniforms, perhaps even landing in Foxborough (according to John Clayton of ESPN) to be reunited with former coach Josh McDaniels. The Patriots will make their draft selections. Only then will we get a real understanding of where the Patriots are and just how much emphasis they are putting on improving their defense.

The weekend? All things considered, it was a consistent, predictable performance based on how the Patriots have done things in the past.

But at this stage, it remains far too difficult to discern whether the Patriots are better - or worse.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

Maybe Bobby Valentine genuinely believes the Red Sox will be a playoff team, or maybe Valentine is merely playing the kind of mind games for which he can be known.

Maybe Valentine is trying to send a message to his players. Maybe he is setting himself up to take credit for any success.

Regardless, slightly more than two weeks before the start of the 2012 season opener, the indisputable truth is that the Red Sox remain a relative mystery, particularly in a league that became far more competitive over the winter.

Seriously folks, exactly how many wins do you project for your baseball team this season? 85? 95? Either number would be an entirely legitimate guess. The Red Sox have not entered a season with this kind of relative uncertainty in a very, very long time, and so the range for them is greater than perhaps any other time during the ownership of the John Henry conglomerate. The Sox have the talent to be a championship contender and the lingering issues to be the object of disdain, making them one of the great variables - or dare we say true wild cards? - in all of baseball this year.

If this all somehow meshes, the Red Sox could be exceptional. If it does not, they could be dysfunctional. Ten years after Valentine managed a New York Mets team long defined by schizophrenia and unfulfilled potential, he now manages a Red Sox team that played last season as if bipolar.

When the Sox were good, after all, they were very, very good. But when they were bad, they were very, very bad.

Further complicating the issue for the Red Sox this year is the improved competition throughout the American League, in the division and out. The Toronto Blue Jays have become everyone's darlings to challenge the hierarchy in the division, and the New York Yankees and Tampa Bay Rays both are now annual playoff contenders. Some wise guy out there is certain to pick the Red Sox fourth in their very own division, a contention that seems utterly outrageous until you actually stop and think about it.

If the Red Sox carry over some of the issues that destroyed them at the end of last season, they might not be one of the three best teams in their division, let alone league. And when the discussion expands to include the Detroit Tigers, Texas Rangers and Los Angeles Angels, among others, the reality is that the Red Sox might end up in the middle of the pack of a league in which there is decidedly little margin for error.

Is that true for other clubs in the upper half of the league, be they the Rays, Jays or even Texas Rangers? Of course. The obvious difference is that the Red Sox are still toting that $180-$190 million payroll, which is an awful lot to pay for a team that might finish in the middle of the pack.

Think of the questions on this team at the moment: Shortstop. Right field. The bullpen. Every pitcher from Josh Beckett, Daniel Bard and Clay Buchholz to Andrew Bailey and Alfredo Aceves comes with some question of durability - and the potential for enormous upside. Add in a rookie general manager and the opinionated Bobby V., and there is the potential here for a reality show that should make team chairman Tom Werner giddy.

And yet, for all of the talk this spring about the issues that plagued the Red Sox last year and continue to hover them this spring, here is something we all should not overlook: there is indisputably the potential here for greatness. If things break right - if Beckett bounces back, if Valentine's ways are embraced, if Bailey flourishes - the Sox could win their division. Talent has never once been the issue on this team, and a year ago there were many proclaiming the Sox as absolute world-beaters coming out of camp.

And for a good chunk of time last summer, they were.

All of that said, here's a prediction: the Sox will play well during the early stages of this season because they have to. After last September, a slow start would increase the potential for disaster. Don't be surprised if the Sox come out and play April and May as they did in 2002 - the year immediately following their last cataclysmic finish - when they raced to a 40-17 start. Unfortunately, that club ultimately reverted to form and went 53-52 over its final 105 games, missing the playoffs by six games and becoming the poster boys for the Red Sox of the Tom Yawkey era.

That club, like this one, was loaded with big-name talent, from Pedro Martinez and Derek Lowe (a 20-game winner in 2002) to Nomar Garciaparra, Manny Ramirez and Johnny Damon. And yet, when the schedule intensified and the heat got turned up, the Sox were anything but a team, and anyone who remembers that season remembers that the Sox almost never came back from deficits and rarely fought for one another.

In the end, their numbers looked good and had a cluster of All-Stars.

But they didn't win a darned thing.

Bobby V said on a New York radio show that the Red Sox are a work in progress. Maybe Valentine has recognized the extent of the fractures that exist within the Boston organization. Maybe Valentine was positioning himself as the man to fix it. Or maybe Valentine simply feels as we almost all do, that the Red Sox have the talent to win and the selfish attitude to lose, and that the 2012 season could be a struggle between those forces.

This year, in this league, what the Red Sox ultimately will be, after all, is anybody's guess.

By Tony Massarotti, Globe Columnist

No NHL team has repeated as Stanley Cup champion since 1998, but this was never really about winning consecutive championships. It was about trying. It was about maximizing the opportunity. And at the moment, the Bruins are not even coming close.

Extending a malaise now measured in months, the Bruins were embarrassed by the Tampa Lightning on Tuesday in a game that wasn't nearly so close. The Bruins twice changed goalies in this game, the recently acquired Marty Turco turning in the kind of effort Bruins fans have not seen since Roberto Luongo took to the TD Garden ice during the Stanley Cup finals last spring.

Even then, Turco lasted roughly half as long as Luongo did.

“You can sense fatigue in our club,’’ Bruins coach Claude Julien told reporters following the debacle. “That’s our biggest challenge right now. We’re not playing well and fatigue’s creeping in. We have to find a way to right the ship.’’

Do they ever.

Or they won't make it past the first round of the playoffs.

If you didn't witness any of the Bruins' pathetic performance on Tuesday, let's put it into perspective for you this way: it was the kind of game that could get a coach fired. Claude Julien isn't going anywhere, of course - nor should he be - but if a team other than the reigning Stanley Cup champions suffered the kind of ignominious defeat the Bruins did against Tampa Bay ... amid this type of prolonged slump ... at this time of the season ... well, heads might roll.

The Bruins of Tuesday were the Bruins of the Dave Lewis era, minus the repeated transgressions for having too many men on the ice.

At the moment, after all, the Bruins don't seem to have enough.

Lest anyone pin this all on injuries, stop. Certainly, the Bruins are banged up. But since winning a game at Phoenix on Dec. 28, the Bruins are now 16-17-2, a pace that would produce a mere 80 points over the course of a full season. Last season, there were only five teams in the entire NHL to finish with a lower point total, which should give you some indication of just how far the Bruins have fallen in the relative blink of an eye.

The Bruins, quite simply, have gone from the best team in the NHL to one of the absolute worst in less time than it takes to ice the puck, and it suddenly seems as if they have no intention of making the journey back.

Really, isn't that the issue here? The Bruins have talent. At the very least, they have enough to put forth something better than a 2-5 record in their last seven games, a period during which the Bruins have allowed an astonishing 27 goals, 21 of them in 5-on-5 play that is supposed to be the team's greatest strength. Defense, too, is supposed to be perhaps this team's greatest core value, but the Bruins suddenly look about as disciplined in their own end as the Toronto Maple Leafs.

The $64,000 question: why? Is this solely an issue of fatigue? Are the Bruins merely disinterested by a regular season that has clearly had little value to them for some time? Did they exhaust whatever energy they had in November and December proving that they would not suffer from the dreaded Cup hangover?

Or is this exactly what the Cup hangover is, a collection of issues that pile up on a team in March following a season that extends into mid-June?

Indeed, in recent Boston sports history, the end of championship droughts have come at a price. In 2002, after winning their first Super Bowl, the Patriots went a mediocre 9-7 and missed the playoffs altogether. The 2005 Red Sox qualified for the postseason, but they were swept in the first round. The Celtics of 2008-09 broke down and got bounced in the second round by the Orlando Magic, and we justified a Game 7 blowout loss by saying the Celtics merely ran out of gas.

Now the Bruins are in an indisputable flat spin, looking like a team that has no energy - and no real desire - to defend its title.

If you are among those who believe that was all an inevitability, you certainly would have your right to that opinion. Hockey is a physical and demanding game. Last season, for the most part, the Bruins remained remarkably healthy. They won with depth, which remained relatively intact over the course of a season in which they ultimately played 107 games.

This year, particularly of late, the injuries and ailments have piled up at an alarming rate. Nathan Horton. Rich Peverley. Andrew Ference and Tuukka Rask. Johnny Boychuk. Daniel Paille. Benoit Pouliot and Adam McQuaid. Patrice Bergeron took yet another shot off the left leg against Tampa Bay, and he might not have been out there at all had the Bruins been in a better predicament.

“It’s a tough position because you want to be in the right spot for the playoffs, and you want to be as fresh as you can be," Julien said when asked about Bergeron. "But we’ve got to win games in order to get there right now.”

The good news? The Bruins still have time. They still hold the No. 2 seed in the Eastern Conference and they have 13 games to play. The Bruins could get healthy and amp up their level of play just as the calendar turns to April, when their Stanley Cup will be formally put up for grabs.

But right now, it certainly feels as if the wheels are coming off.