All things must pass (especially baseballs)

As ESPN.com reported a couple hours ago and Cubs.com now confirms, the Cubs traded Michael Barrett and cash to the Padres today for backup catcher Rob Bowen and a single-A prospect.

I'm not sure how to feel about it. There seem to be two schools of thought on the trade:

(a) Barrett wasn't that bad; we should have gotten more back for him; it was pointless.

(b) Barrett was that bad, and even if he wasn't, there was too much personality conflict; he was a free agent anyway and probably wouldn't be resigned, so at least we got something for him.

I could argue that I'm of both schools. There's little doubt in my mind that this was mostly a dump job for personality reasons. As I argued last week, Barrett's offensive contributions - at least compared to the Blanco/Hill plate nightmare - tend to outweigh whatever defensive liabilities he brings to the table. However, historically, Barrett has both been better offensively and better defensively (this is his first year with the Cubs that his fielding percentage has been below league average for catchers). Last year he hit .307; this year, that's his OBP. His power numbers are on pace to set career highs, but that isn't everything. I'm not in the clubhouse, so I can't say just how much of a personality conflict existed there - most of his teammates insisted publicly there was no problem, but it seems like management didn't feel the same way.

You could certainly argue that we didn't get enough back for him - a backup catcher and a single-A prospect? Said prospect is rated okay, but certainly isn't a big-league player within the next year or two. The Cubs have a recent history of getting decent throw-ins (Fontenot came over in the Sosa deal, for example), but you've got to wait for those to pay off. If they do.

As for Bowen - is he the new backup, with Hill starting? Is he the new backup with Geovany Soto (who has been hitting like crazy at Iowa) called up to start? Is he the new starter with either Hill or Soto serving as backup? Honestly, who knows. Perhaps the Cubs felt that the catcher's offense just wasn't important enough - hell, check out 2003, when the Cubs won the division with the #8 hole mostly filled with Damian Miller (.233/.310/.369, 9 HR/36 RBI) and Paul Bako (.229/.311/.330, 0 HR/17 RBI). That's a pretty pitiful offensive contribution - Barrett already matched that homer total and had more than half the RBIs, while hitting 25 points higher or so.

On overall talent, this team is better than that team. So a minimal downgrade at catcher - assuming there is enough defensive improvement to statistically account for most of the offensive loss, and if whoever takes over as the starter finds the bat at least a little, it could - shouldn't make that much of a difference, so long as Lee and Soriano keep producing, Ramirez comes back soon, and the pitching stays solid. (Fingers crossed.)

I guess this trade was inevitable. Do I wish we could have gotten a little more back? Sure. But then you don't get much back for guys who:

(a) Are widely considered defensive liabilities at their position and aren't even hitting great this year;
(b) Have been in at least two fights in the past year and seem to have personality issues;
(c) Will be free agents at the end of the year;
(d) Everyone knows you've been looking to trade for weeks.

So, I guess I can live with it. I just hope we don't regret dealing away Barrett's offense in three months.