Question: Would the Astros have still traded Berkman had he been batting .300? Maybe they would have never acquired Wallace for Oswalt and then traded Berkman, but I think it not unlikely they would have traded Berkman no matter how he was playing, given the direction of the club, the difference being they would have gotten more for him and not had to eat part of his salary.
As someone noted above, however, business is business. Berkman himself should recognize this given that he was reportedly not interested in staying with the Astros for a hometown discount. In other words, he was having the worst season of his career and was willing to walk if the Astros refused to pay him another $15 million on the option.
All that being said, according to Crasnick, "Teammates, opponents, managers, fans, media members and scouts regard Berkman as an uncommonly nice person and the classic case of an athlete who has his act together. He's quotable, approachable and brimming with perspective, and he's that rare star player who's able to dissect his game through a self-deprecating lens. But the game isn't always fun when the bat and ball can feel like a ball and chain."
This is not the way somebody described as a dick tends to behave. Nor is "an athlete who has his act together" typically used to discuss someone who fails to get back in shape after an injury, although maybe Crasnick either did not talk to the right people, or maybe he discounted the opinions of those who disagree, assuming he could find anyone who was critical of Berkman.
Another question: Would you prefer Oswalt, who pissed and moaned while he was with the club until he forced the their hand to trade him, or would you prefer Berkman, who at least kept his mouth shut (mostly) until he was shipped out?
