What I've told some Cubs fans about Joe Maddon

 As I was driving home from a Mavericks game, I realized that Joe Maddon could be the one person able to erase the misery of the last 106 years or so.

He could make the Cubs winners because that's what he did with the Rays. 

He didn't do it all by himself. He came along with a management that had a clue without thinking it knew everything. It was an enlightened management that realized you didn't have to give everyone the highest salary of anybody at his position if you treated the players well. 

With Maddon running the team, the Rays were able to find players who were better than even they knew. 

The last step was for Maddon to convince the players that they could win. It took a few years. 

The situation he'll have in Chicago isn't a whole lot different from what he had in the AL East. But the Cardinals and Pirates are hardly as entrenched as the Yankees and Red Sox, nor do they receive the benefits that the New York and Boston teams did from baseball's hierarchy and the media. 

So it might take Maddon two years to do what he did in three for the Rays. 

If he uses his tenure there as the template, he'll spend the first year convincing players it's possible for them to win as a group. He'll be firm but positive with the players. He'll get them working together without cliques in the locker room. 

In the second year, he'll take aim at the Cardinals. There will be a game when the Cardinals throw at a Cub, and the Chicago pitcher will come back to take out Yadier Molina or some other key player. Or maybe a minor character. With the Rays, he did it with utility infielder Elliot Johnson taking out Yankees catcher Francisco Cervelli. In spring training. The uproar at the time from New York was deafening. Who were they to do that to the Yankees? 

But at a time when another AL East manager told me his team was afraid of the Yankees -- and I observed that the Rangers seemed the same way -- the Rays had no fear of the Yanks. 

I heard Maddon in his farewell press conference saying how great a contribution Elliot Johnson made to the Rays' success. 

By the third year, here's how the Rays as a team showed me they were together from the top of the organization to the bottom. When they'd come to Texas in '09 or '10, it seemed that the music in the clubhouse was almost always a song called "Low" by Flo Rida. Kind of a hip hop song. The younger players -- most of them were young -- and the black players liked the music. But there in the clubhouse, singing along with the lyrics, would be 38-39-40-year-old Troy Percival. I never heard Maddon singing it, but I'm sure he approved.

Joe Maddon is my favorite major league manager to deal with. That's the case with most of the people who come in contact with him. He is one of the most genuinely interesting and interested people I've been around. He can carry on a conversation on just about any topic without coming across as a know-it-all. He knows what he doesn't know, and seems willing to listen to others who might have the answers. 

Managers have different reactions to their pre-game and post-game sessions with the media. Some treat it like a visit to the dentist, let's get it over with (Ryne Sandberg). Most tolerate it. Some can be prickly (Ned Yost). Maddon seems to embrace the time. He never seems rushed, he always allows enough time so he doesn't have to tell the writers and broadcasters it's time to go. It begins and ends on its own time, and it's a give and take.

Especially with Ozzie Guillen and Jim Leyland out of managing, Maddon has the most interesting media sessions.

I'm pretty sure he's the same with his players. Always having time and making time for them, and always hearing them out and learning from them.

A story. I was in one of Mike Scioscia's pre-game news gatherings in the dugout before a game a couple of years ago. I'd noticed in the media notes that a couple of players were nearly ready to come off the disabled list. He didn't say anything about them, so I asked about their status. He said something about one player, then he said that the other one, Sean Burnett, would be shut down and would undergo season-ending shoulder surgery. By that time, the clubhouse was closed to the media, but the Angels beat writers arranged to get an interview with Burnett outside the clubhouse. While we were waiting to talk to him, the Angels writers thanked me for asking. I said something about how I just figured it didn't hurt to ask. I don't think Scioscia neglected to tell us on purpose. But I told the writers that because I worked with a lot of visiting managers, there were managers who wouldn't tell you anything, some who would tell you just what they were supposed to say and others who would volunteer information. The writers didn't seem to believe it and asked, "Who volunteers information?" I said, "Maddon." Then they all nodded their heads and understood.

Utility infielders? Time to get those pitchers and catchers reporting

Some very exciting stuff on the lukewarm hot stove Monday -- especially if you're a fan of utility infielders.
Three or four of them signed minor league contracts. The Indians agreed to terms with Elliot Johnson, whose base stealing actually can give him some fantasy value; the going-several-directions-at-once Brewers welcomed Pete Orr, and Chris Nelson signed with the Reds, one of the few teams he didn't play for in 2013. I still haven't seen a confirmation that the Rockies and Paul Janish made a deal. If you're looking at Janish for your fantasy team, you're in a for a long season. He can help a team's defense for a few late innings a week.
And there's speculation that LHP David Huff, newly acquired from the Yankees, could fill a role as the Giants' fifth starter. If Huff's a viable major league starter at this point, why wouldn't New York keep him? Is his salary too small?
* * *
Basketball. I'm off to a 7-1 start this week, but I don't put much stock in that. I had four players active Monday to my opponent's one. He's leading in free throw percentage because his player, Trey Burke, made his only attempt. So my .875 is second to Burke's 1.000.
My division and league leads are 8 1/2 games with six weeks remaining. I don't plan to let up. My belief is that fantasy owners, winning or losing, owe it to the rest of the league to play from the first week to the last. On my part, there won't be any of the thinking that some NBA fans try to mind-meld on to their favorite team: "If we could finish seventh instead of sixth, we wouldn't have to face the (current hot team in third place in the conference)." I wouldn't look at overall lineups and say during the last week, "If I lay down against this fifth-place team, it could move into fourth and I'd have an easy road in the semifinals."
But you know what? I still have to win the league to get the first seed.
* * *
Hockey. All four of my bench players were from the Avalanche. Two factors went into that decision. 1) I have to limit the games played, as I outlined in the previous post, so that I'm not sitting on the fantasy sidelines for the last week or two, and 2) The Stars have been hot lately, so the matchups might not be good.
That strategy didn't look good as I watched at the American Airlines Center when "my" Nathan MacKinnon scored in the first minute or when Paul Stastny scored on a power play or later when it appeared that Stastny might have deflected what became the game-winning goal.
But in the end, the four Colorado players were a combined minus-4.
Here's an edited version of what I wrote about the game itself.
My acquisition of Kevin Bieksa looked good. He provided an assist and two penalty minutes to help me within within one PIM of the team directly ahead of me. A question I've often asked: Why the "I" in PIM?
* * *
The line for the big game 48 in my "Bet a Thousand" pool was set today at Denver minus-2. My own research had come up with this: Denver minus-2.
What to do? At the time I made the line, I established this line of thinking. If the weather is reasonable (which it is expected to be Sunday), that could be to Denver's advantage. Also, it's Peyton Manning against Russell Wilson. Of course, it's really Manning against the Seahawks' scary defense, but still he's Peyton Manning. Also -- and this is a line of thinking that could get you killed if you always used it -- a rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a team is likely to win by a field goal or win by a touchdown. If Sunday's game comes down to the last minute tied and the Broncos have the ball, could they be likely to get a field goal?
An even more dangerous way to approach the decision is to look at history. We've had 47 years of big games. In that time, there has been only one game decided by 1 point: the Bills' wide-right loss to the Giants in big game 25. Six games were decided by 3 points, with five of those during the past 12 years. What I think we can take away from this is that it's likely whatever team wins will do it by 3 or more points.
So the question is "Are the Broncos likely to win?" I think so, even as much as I respect Seattle's defense.
I expect the people in my pool to be about evenly split. That would mean of the five people ahead of me in the pool, two or three of those ahead of me would be likely to take Seattle. So if Denver covers, I'd move up from sixth to third or fourth. If the Broncos win by 2, I'd remain sixth, the last place in the money. If Seattle wins, I'd lose anyway -- which I would also do if Denver somehow won by 1.
I think the Broncos will win, quite likely by a narrow margin such as 3 points. If I made a token "wager" such as $100, it's likely that at least one person would pass me and I'd be out of the money no matter who wins the game or covers.
On the other hand, if those at the top take Seattle, and one or more of the others take the safety-first approach, I could move up even higher than third or fourth.
The most I could finish with in my hypothetical bank would be $5,800, which would keep me in the money somewhere. Obviously, I would lose with $0, but I might also lose with $3,000.
It doesn't hurt that I have some other irons in the fire. In the Pittsburgh playoff pick-'em pool, I think I would finish first if Seattle wins. Also, I have a puncher's chance to win at least my original entry fee in a traditional 100-square Super Bowl pool with winners each quarter and prize money for diagonally touching squares.