After exploring some alternative etymologies, some disoriented commenters have tried to warp my intent at open brainstorming into some agenda to ignore onus wholesale. Back to reality, we have the right and obligation as intelligent readers to question what we read and to seek out new ideas. Some ideas may fail. And so what? We get back on our feet and think some more. It's worth it to read, ponder, express and explore. Those that object to this wear their mental stagnation on their sleeve. Ignoring for a moment the topic of Aegean substrate, the fact is that some commonly reconstructed IE roots are poorly attested and some so weakly evidenced that it begs the question why we even call them PIE roots aside from starry-eyed credentialism.
Many a hallowed PIE root is built on flimsy evidence and a good chunk of these suspicious terms just happen to form words relating to heavily traded products, with reflexes that hover like a ghost around the Mediterranean. A commonly used cop-out is to label a reconstructed root as "Western IE", which basically means "Ah what the hell, let's shove it in there. Nobody'll notice!"
There's of course no meaningful concept behind "Western IE" and in such circumstances, it's perfectly reasonable to suspect substrate influence that is mistaken as PIE inheritance. I certainly don't think that all Western IE roots are to be reassigned to the Aegean family, but I'm reasonably sure that in our ignorance of Minoan and related languages, Minoan history and "Pelasgian" substrate in Greek, there is definitely a noteworthy portion of words stemming from the eastern Mediterranean that are misassigned to PIE in overeagerness, thereby obscuring the linguistic past, exaggerating the importance of one group over many others.
Taking Douglas and Mallory's The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world, for instance, it's not hard to compile from it a list of "potentially not IE" roots such as: *wóino- 'wine', *táuro- 'bull', *mélit- 'honey' and *márko- 'horse'. These are words that deserve our skepticism for many reasons. As we can see, *a arises disproportionately in "Western IE" roots. Certainly there are valid roots on the PIE level with *a (since a vowel system without a low vowel is unheard of), but the preponderance of them in "Western IE" roots is what makes the whole thing quite glaring. They're also coincidentally wandering terms relating to animals and trade.
I've already talked about the non-IE-ness of *mélit and suggested a possible Aegean source for discussion, but this was based purely on supposition. All I can stress is that just because something is popularly reconstructed in PIE doesn't make it so or obligate us to respect it as a "fact". All the ad populums in the world can't make up for a strange lack of eastern cognates in some of these roots.
Finally, in the case of *táuro- it's interesting to note that the word is in fact attested in Etruscan (Θevru-Mineś 'Bull of Minos' [TLE 755]) and therefore could be cunningly used as a means to undermine the PIE reconstruction. In that scenario, Etruscan would serve as lexical intermediary between otherwise suspiciously similar Latin and Greek terms, a notion already accepted by historians to explain other shared vocabulary.
 Douglas/Adams, The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world (2006), p.89 (see link).