I understand what you are saying, but I also understand the other side.

There are some people who try to trade big name players who are on the "downside" of their careers and try to take the future from the other team. The object of these people is to hope that the person they are trading with is relatively unfamiliar with baseball, BUT can recognize a big name.

So they then offer the "Big Name" who is sliding and in return only ask for 2 young players and some high draft picks. What the unsuspecting owner doesn't know is that the 2 young guys with their 0.559 PB value are rated as possible superstars. So hey, I get John Smoltz and a second round free agent, but give up Vernon Wells, Josh Phelps, and my first round rookie and first round free agent picks. To the casual fan who knows nothing of players outside their own area they might think this is a good deal.

Those are the types of trades people are speaking out against.

Do lopsided trade occur in the majors? Not often (they happen more in hockey - but that is due to money more than anything else).

It's hard to judge though, when an owner has a grasp of what he has/hasn't. I think that's when Mike steps in and asks owners to explain their reasoning. He checks to see if the owner understands he has two projected superstars on the block for an ageing soon to be hasbeen. I do think these trade should be monitored and that future thinking must be taken into account.

I highly doubt that the people making major league trades look only at this moment in time when making a trade as you suggest we do... i think they always look to what a player's potential could be.