How would you deal with an employee who engages in gambling and 
has a very public extramarital affair with a 19-year-old woman? How about a different employee whose erratic behavior included lecturing people about the use of anti-depressant drugs and hopping onto a couch in the middle of an interview?
The two management teams acted very differently. In the first instance, the management is the New York Mets and the employee is star catcher Paul LoDuca. In the last month, Lo Duca’s gambling habit became public news within days after a 19-year-old Long Island woman "outed" the All-Star catcher and their affair after discovering he had lied to her about being married. Mets manangement was strangely silent throughout the double crisis and has doggedly stood behind their man. Sumner Redstone and Paramount Studios have taken an entirely different tact with wacko superstar, Tom Cruise, ending their 14-year relationship yesterday.
Obviously, these are two totally different scenarios. But, the fact remains that a management team’s treatment of an erratic employee clearly reflects on its image and reputation with all constituent audiences.
Are the Mets sending a subliminal "boys will be boys" message by turning a blind eye to Lo Duca’s behavior? Are they saying that they’re willing to win at any cost, regardless of the message it sends to kids and their parents?
Is Paramount, on the other hand, drawing a line in the sand, and telling its actors and fan base alike that Cruise’s various meltdowns reflect poorly on the film studio, and that it will enforce certain behavioral guidelines moving forward?
I, for one, am heartened by Paramount’s moves and disheartened by the Mets’ inertia. Both send strong, distinct messages. And, both indicate the kind of society we’ve become. Sadly, though, Sumner Redstone’s resolve seems more of a quaint reminder of what American morals and ethics used to be, while Omar Minaya and the Mets seem to reflect where we are now and where we are headed.
Thanks to Chris "Repman Jr." Cody for this idea.
When I see Bond’s balls go further and know that he has treated his body like an experiment, I don’t feel so entertained.
You should wake up MSE. What you are telling us is that as long as a team entertains you they have freedom to do as they choose and not play by the same rules as you and I (read: society)?
Do you want your children to look up to these people and emulate them? Will it be perfectly fine for MSE Jr. to inject drugs, sleep with multiple partners out of wedlock, lie under oath, and gamble?
Come to think of it, the more I read your posts. it is easy to imagine you finding that as entertainment. It’s simple, lacks the adequate level of common sense and is easy to comprehend.
rep- dont know what papers you have been reading but the mets and minaya did come out and say that they spoke to lo duca, are working with mlb, and that lo duca assured them this didnt take place. i think the mets did a great job of standing behind their player and not throwing him under the bus. again, the only thing there is so far is an allegation.
in terms of the C of PO, i would bet 95% of Mets fans couldnt care who he sleeps with or if he bets on a football game. it sure as hell doesn’t matter to me. and by the way, if u think that more than 5% of athletes are totally clean, you might want to consider waking up to reality.
i heard a great line on the sports reporters a few weeks ago- they were taking about athletes and image in relation to bonds and one guy (forget who) said that athletes are entertainers. so who cares who they sleep with, or what they inject. the fact is they are paid to entertain us, and if the ball goes further, we are entertained. i dont know why you keep trying to hold athletes to such high morals..its time to wake up.
I’m with Moon. There are no freakin’ morals in Hollywood! Cruise is not the moneymaker he once was and that’s why he was canned. Certainly not because Paramount thinks his behavior is inappropriate.
True, Paramount could be taking a risk but I don’t think Paramount thinks so… Sumner Redstone from Paramount is quoted saying, “we don’t think that someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot.”
Interesting input, Moon. But one could argue that Paramount is taking a big risk by walking away from a bankable product like Cruise (as opposed to wanting to run lean). Btw, speaking of Entourage, doesn’t Ed remind you of Ari Gold?
While I agree that it is refreshing to see someone stand up to a Hollywood narcissist, I am not so sure I agree with your last statement – “be strong enough to walk away from ‘bankable’ assets.”
As of late, I’ve been really interested in reading about the business side of Hollywood – less from my interest in Entourage and more from the fact that my best gal just landed a job a Creative Artists Agency, top talent agency in Hollywood. Anyways I digress… what I’ve been learning is that Hollywood execs (like those in Corporate America) are facing intense pressures from Wall Street and a lot more unknowns due to changing moviegoer habits, rising production / marketing costs and threats of piracy, etc. As a result, being lean is a slogan even in Hollywood.
With that in mind, I’m more inclined to think that the departure of Cruise from Paramount is more to do with the fact that Paramount wasn’t willing to hand over big bucks to have the actor around. His image problem, though accurate, proved to be a better excuse.
An employee, of any company (or sports franchise), should show some common sense, MSE. I’m going to assume you are a Mets fan? Wouldn’t this type of behavior make you feel somewhat slighted by the player and the franchise? Or, do only wins and losses matter to you?
A professional sport, to me, is an oxymoron. Sure these athletes earn money so that they are no longer amateurs; however, most behave like children.
Thankfully, college football is right around the corner.
You’re absolutely right, Moon. But, my post was more about Paramount’s strong management stance vis-a-vis Cruise. It’s refreshing to see someone stand up to these egomaniacs and be strong enough to walk away from ‘bankable’ assets.
I-man: have you ever heard of the expression, ‘the silence was deafening’? The Mets silence about Lo Duca and his boorish behavior sends the wrong statement to fans, sponsors and the other players. If they were smart, the Mets management would say something to the effect that, “Although these charges have not been proven and we do stand behind Lo Duca, it is important for our fans everywhere to know we would never condone or support such behavior.’ I-man, you need to better understand the ‘court of public opinion.’ While our judicial system does in fact consider an individual innocent until proven guilty, our 24×7 news cycle society does not. Silence implies endorsement.
Though I can’t really comment on the baseball part, I can say something about Tommy Cruise.. apparently Paramount’s dumping of the A-list star did little harm since soon after a couple of hedge funds (not disclosed as of yet) have already agreed to finance the creation of his own production company!
This shows that even in the face of bad press, Tom (like Mel himself) can still be a bankable star.
very much disagree with the post today. lo duca having an affair has NOTHING to do with the NY Mets. that is his personal business and MANY athletes do things on the road. so what should the mets do- release him? that is beyond absurd!
in terms of the gambling, nothing has been proven yet and if it is, he will face the music from the mets and MLB. ever hear of the adage- innocent until proven guilty? apparently not.