Agree with everything Brian said.

Trades must be evaluated based on the risks and rewards that are known at the time.

You also have to look at the thought process and the motivation behind the trade. And if the trade looks strange Mike will ask the owners. If the owners give good enough justification Mike usually lets it go.

My favorite example goes something like this. In the spring of 2000 I owned a team in S3 that was rebuilding. (Note: I don't have the team anymore - I gave it up when I cut back after I got married) I had just drafted Kris Benson with the 3rd pick in the rookie draft. I had Rico Brogna as my first baseman, It was obvious (to me) he had no future value and I wanted to get him off my roster while I could still get something in return [I also drafted Derrek Lee in FA draft but at that time he was still kind of flaky and I didn't trust my 1B job to him]. After a number of back and forth negotiations with another owner the following trade was agreed upon:

I gave: Rico Brogna and Kris Benson
I got: Richie Sexson and Eric Gagne

For that year Brogna had a PB value higher than Sexson but I felt it was obvious that Brogna's PB value was articifially high due to playing time and the over-valuation of first base defense.

Mike's response to the trade went something like (paraphrased) "I can understand the swap of Brogna for Sexson but I don't understand the swap of Benson for Gagne because Benson has much higher upside."

I responded that in my estimation Brogna had very little left and in my eyes the trade was Sexson and Gagne for Benson -- Brogna was basically a throw in to get the deal done.

After I gave that explanation Mike allowed the trade although I think he implied he disagreed with my assesment.

Now fastforwarding to 2003 -- If you had to evaluate that deal I would say that it was a landslide in favor of my former team.

Note that in 2000 there were some people (including the commish) that felt one side was getting too much. In hindsight the opposite team appears to have gotten way too much.

The point is that you cannot rule trades with an iron fist. If something looks questionable then asking for explanation is appropriate. If the explanation is sound then there are many times when the trade should be allowed.

I think Mike usually does a good job of policing these types of trades (although at times I think trades for role players that have no impact get too much attention). I think that some of the people complaining about specific trades need to get a better grasp of the big picture and the risks and rewards that go into being a good GM.

Please note: The point of this example is not to criticize Mike's assesment of players in that deal. My point is to compliment Mike on his flexibility in allowing the trade after hearing my justification.