I don't think so.

Sometimes it appears that certain managers are able to make trades that appear one-sided while other trades that seem even get turned down, but as we've seen from trade discussions on this board; almost any trade can be defended as fair or unfair as no one can really predict the future. I think Mike doesn't play favorites but some managers have a better idea of how to set up a trade to meet Mike's criteria for evaluating the trade or enough persistence to wear him down. There is no intentional favoritism, it is just human nature and none of us would do a better job than Mike does.

The game sometimes seems to favor certain teams consistently through the season. "Why" is hard to understand but for example: I had an LL team with mediocre (at best) starting pitching which led its league in ERA by over a run per game (2.89 vs 4.25) and had 3 of my starters in the top 10 in league ERA (2nd, 3rd, 8th). I don't buy the "small sample size" as likes to be used to excuse every oddity of the game - and I wasn't cheating as surely my opponents must have suspected. I think my combination of players fit the game with good defense at key positions and pitchers who caused balls to be hit mostly to the top defenders.

The game does seem to consistently favor (or penalize) certain players in certain years and when it happens, usually it is across all leagues - implying to me a systemic logic in the game that something about that player's stats affects how the game treats his outcomes. It isn't just "small sample size".