I finally had a chance to chime in on the Mariners' struggles so far this season. I don't like this team at all right now. They are far worse than anyone expected.

Geoff Baker shared this stat last night following the M's two-hit showing against Texas: With Erik Bedard's performance last night, the Mariner starters have had 15 starts of seven or more innings this season. The team has only won eight of those games. The starters have only six of those eight victories. It goes to show that good starting pitching, without complementary pieces surrounding it, doesn't ensure victories.

So, basically, the Mariners overcorrected this past offseason. General manager Bill Bavasi patched up the holes in the rotation by acquiring Erik Bedard and signing Carlos Silva, but he neglected the rest of the roster. Now, he'll tell you that he couldn't make other moves until the Bedard deal was in place. That is probably true, if you're talking about making acquisitions by trade. Obviously, the biggest void is in right field, where Adam Jones was supposed to be, but he was sent to Baltimore in the package for Bedard.

Still, Bavasi should have been more diligent in trying to create a lineup -- and a bench -- that could've supported the team better.

On the surface, the Mariners' lineup is the same as it was last season, with the exception of Jose Guillen, the right fielder a year ago. How could losing one guy make that big of an impact? Well, it's not that simple.

Yes, the Mariners have suffered a severe downgrade in right-field production, but they're also struggling mightily at designated hitter and catcher. In addition, Richie Sexson is still performing poorly at the plate, even though he has seven home runs. So the Mariners are getting very little from four spots in the order. And with the exception of Raul Ibanez and, at times, Jose Lopez, the rest of the lineup is producing somewhere between OK and sub-par.

Add it all up, and you have a team that goes through bad offensive stretches such as the current one (a single run scored in the past 22 innings).

Which begs the question: How bad could things get if the starters pitch poorly for, say, two weeks? They haven't been pitching great lately, but they're still performing well enough on the whole. But what if they catch that Miguel Batista-itis?

Better hope that doesn't happen.

I'm back. After nine enjoyable days back in my home state, I have returned to a regular column schedule. I have missed debating sports issues with all of you, so I'm excited to get back into the routine.

Today's column is about the death of Kentucky Derby runner-up Eight Belles. I was at Churchill Downs for the shocking outcome Saturday, so I drew from that experience to frame the column.

What a day of excitement, followed by despair. I'm still trying to come to terms with everything I think. I didn't see Eight Belles break her legs because I was in the paddock when she went down, but her misfortune had a weird impact on the crowd. There was shock, disbelief. But mostly on this day, the most glamorous in horse racing, people commenced enjoying the day.

Still, without question, the 134th Kentucky Derby will be remembered as much for Eight Belles' death as it will for Big Brown's triumph. And since horse racing is a drive-by spectator sport for the average fan, horse racing has much damage control to perform.

I don't have all the answers to this dilemma. But I will say this: Horse racing needs to stop disregarding its problem and take more proactive steps to ensuring its horses have the best possible chance to live long.

If not, they are doing their sport a disservice. If not, they are crossing the line and wandering into animal cruelty.

As you learned in this column, I don't think the sport is barbaric. But if thoroughbreds keep dying on the sport's biggest days, that perception will become even more common -- and accepted.

First, I have an announcement.

I will be on a brief vacation this week to visit family and attend the Kentucky Derby. My column will return May 6. So, if you dislike my latest offering, good news: You won't hear from me for the next nine days.

But I hope that you spend some time pondering a solution for today's column. It's about the latest statistic on African-Americans in Major League Baseball. Blacks are down to 8.2 percent.

Now, let's be clear: The point of the column is not to scream racism. It is not to make everyone feel charged to grab the closest black kid and go play catch with him. The column is as much about money as it is about race. It is mostly a glimpse into the struggles of baseball in the inner city.

My fear is that this topic has passed the trendy phase and has simply become an accepted truth. A few years ago, everyone was talking about the scarcity of African-Americans in the majors. Now, other issues have become more prominent. Yet, a few questions still linger.

How can the game be made attractive to African-Americans, or inner-city children in general, again?

How does baseball remain an inclusive toward any race that is not highly represented?

I don't know the answers, but this is a worthy conversation.

On the whole, baseball is doing just fine with diversity. Minorities make up 40 percent of the league, led by Latin players (29 percent). The MLB is becoming more accessible to Asians, too. So nobody is calling baseball a racist sport.

But black athletes, who once enlivened the game, are running away from it now. Just as worrisome, the expense of being an American baseball player has skyrocketed. So, how do poor young kids learn the game in this costly system?

It is an interesting dilemma, one that has been debated again and again. But it's not time to give up on the problem. We must keep it relevant and continue to ponder solutions.

Had a little fun with Clay Bennett and Co. in today's column. They have given both the city and Howard Schultz significant ammunition in their lawsuits because they shared all their secrets over e-mail.

Don't they know about not leaving evidence behind? Don't they know about how e-mails always seem to come back and bite people?

Some simple e-mail rules:

-- Never e-mail an ex after a night of drinking.
-- Never accidentally hit REPLY ALL.
-- Never say anything unprofessional or potentially damaging while using your company address.
-- Remember that e-mails don't disappear easily.

Even when you delete an e-mail, it stays in the company system for quite a while. At our newspaper, I believe it lingers around for five years. As soon as these lawsuits arose, you knew the first thing to be scrutinized would be e-mails. And yet the Oklahoma Raiders left a cyber trail that would extend from Seattle to Oklahoma City.

And it looks like there are more damaging e-mails to come over the next few weeks.

Crazy.

But at least it gives us reason to laugh at them.

At least it gives us hope that these lawsuits might keep them from running away with the Sonics.

The NBA playoffs are off to a rousing start, which means it's time to ditch debate over the Sonics' future for a few minutes and talk hoops.

Joining me today is Tom Newell, a former Sonics assistant coach and the son of coaching legend Pete Newell. Tom spent this past season coaching a team in the Chinese Basketball Association. He's one of the most well-rounded basketball minds around, and his only agenda is to better the game, so he's a fun counterpart.

Be sure to check out what Tom is up to with Family Sports Life Today .

And pay close attention to his insights into the game. A journalist vs. coach debate is always quite interesting. In the past Q&A(rgue) sessions, I have made up the questions, but for this one, Tom contributed. We were overflowing with possible topics.

It was entertaining. I learned a lot, although I think I got my butt kicked in this argument.

1. Will this NBA playoffs be one of the greatest ever?

Brewer: I am going to say no. I think that we will wind up having some of the best opening round and conference semifinal matchups that we've seen, in terms of competitiveness, but I do think there are going to be a couple of upsets that are going to turn the playoffs on its ear. It will be similar to last year, when you look up and Utah, a very good team, is in the conference finals, and nobody really believed that Utah had a chance to win the championship, but the Jazz, as well as Golden State upsetting Dallas, made it a great first two rounds. I think it will be similar this year. It has been amazing so far. You can't beat some of these first round matchups -- Suns-Spurs, especially -- but there are only so many true contenders, and if they get knocked out too soon, it dramatically alters the rest of the playoffs. The volatility normally means that an underdog rises to a certain point in which it gets overmatched by a favorite.

Newell: This I know about the NFL and Major League Baseball postseasons: There is always a pinch-hitter. There is always that player who comes off the bench. The X factor has a lot to do with the team success in the postseason, because the regular players have played so many minutes in so many games. If you don't have a core group and you don't have an X factor, I don't care who you are, you can't defend that. So for the postseason to live up to the hype, you have to see some of these guys with fresh legs come in and help their teams.

2. You hear it all the time: Elite players take their games to another level in the playoffs. Is it true? How should we judge our stars in the postseason?

Newell: Experienced players who have been to the playoffs, yes. Because they know what's on the line, especially those who haven't been to the Finals. They want it. It has nothing to do with money, per diem or the private jet. It has everything to do with pride. So, yeah, there's a whole different MENSA that goes into application.

Brewer: I think the elite players on elite teams are allowed to take their games to another level. By that, I mean, if you are going to win in the playoffs, if you are going to win a championship, you have to have a roster that is capable of doing it. Only every once in a while is there a LeBron James, who is able to rise above the level of his team. When he led the Cavs to the Finals last year, that was above and beyond the call of duty, and it put guys like Tracy McGrady, like Dirk Nowitzki, even an Allen Iverson, who gets to play with Carmelo Anthony, it kind of put them under fire to do what he was able to do. But as good as these guys are individually, not only do they have to have the basketball IQ to succeed in the playoffs, but they must have the teams as well. And the playoffs wind up being the great equalizer. If your team is not good enough, which is bigger than most players, then you're not going to be good enough.

Newell: When you first started with your answer, I thought you were talking about the officials had an influence on the ratings and how the game was supposed to go. But the more you defined the identity, the roles and the experience, I agree with you. I concur. The individual player who knows what he has to do within the framework of spacing and opportunity to go 1-on-1 and can complete the play is usually the most successful. We go back to Magic. We go back to Bird, Abdul-Jabbar, Oscar Robertson, Isiah Thomas, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan. So I agree with you on that one.

3. For a team to win in the postseason, how many quality core players are necessary? What should a true contender's roster look like?

Newell: I think the Lakers, Chicago, Detroit, San Antonio, have proved in the last 20 years how much a core group matters. If you take the Lakers' reign with Pat Riley and Jerry West in charge of personnel in the 1980s and the Celtics in the 80s, there was always a core group of seven or eight, and they kept that group intact. And they added to it. The Celtics would add a veteran, like Bill Walton. San Antonio added the Robert Horrys and the Brent Barrys and even the Bruce Bowens. Chicago added Steve Kerr and even Dennis Rodman, who people thought was done in Detroit because he was so eccentric. For a team to win today in a championship series, you have to have that core group. You have to have seven or eight players, so that when there's foul trouble, injuries, whatever, there's not a real drop-off.

Brewer: I am going with eight. We always talk about the stars, and most teams must have two stars who can carry the scoring load. After that, you must have quality role players in the starting lineup. You must have the right guys for your system. And then, you must have a bench. You must have a backup point guard, which is one of Phoenix's problems. You must have a quality backup wing player. And then you need a quality third big, who can play either power forward or center. You will find teams that have great five-man cores not win because they don't have a bench. If you really want to advance, you have to build your complete team and that takes time. Maybe that's one question about the Boston Celtics this season, because they've come together so quickly. Do they have a championship core together? I think they have a core of really good players together, but do they have enough experience to have eight guys who can play together in the postseason?

Newell: When you take a look at Paul Pierce, who has been through the worst record that Boston has ever had in its history, and now you add two perennial All-Stars and future Hall of Famers in Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, you end up having a team that has players who are hungry. I think what happens when you have a team that is hungry, a guy like Paul Pierce who has been in Boston through the losing, he feeds off the adrenaline and feeds off quietness and the focus and the discipline that Ray Allen brings in the locker room, and that Kevin Garnett brings. That's going to raise Paul Pierce's game.

Brewer: One thing they you mention a lot when we talk is the playoffs is a game of adjustments. And your superstar isn't going to be able to get 35 points every night. And so that lends itself to this: the deeper team, in a two-month postseason, is probably going to win the championship. The more quality players you have, the better chance you have to win it all.

4. Who is the NBA MVP?

Newell: I've got to go with co-MVPS, Kobe Bryant and Chris Paul. Third is Kevin Garnett. But when you take a look at what Chris Paul has done to bring a post-Katrina NBA team back to New Orleans and take them to another level, to make everyone on the court better. The only one out there creating is Chris Paul. You have to look at that. You have to admire it, and you have to respect it. Kobe Bryant was able to finally accept Andrew Bynum as his teammate. Kobe wanted Bynum traded. He didn't give him the benefit of the doubt that he's young. He compared himself to Bynum. You're bigger than I was. You're athletic. You should be doing more. Well, it wasn't Bynum's time. It takes 4-5 years for a post player to make the transition into the NBA out of college. Out of high school, where they only play 30 games, out of AAU ball where they play no defense, you expect a kid to be at this level? Unfair. So then Pau Gasol comes in, and now Kobe has an inside player who opens up his game and makes everybody better. So my choice is co-MVP, and I don't know the last time that happened.

Brewer: I think that, with Kobe, we're giving him a lot of credit for things he should have already been doing. Being an unselfish player. Submitting himself fully to teammates. Trusting his teammates. The Pau Gasol thing swings it for me. Gasol, even though he only played 27 regular-season games with the Lakers, he changed the entire tenor of their season. They went from being a pretty good team, a playoff team, to being a true contender. I think you have to give Pau as much credit as you give Kobe, as well as a revitalized Lamar Odom. Think about Chris Paul. The Lakers make the best in-season trade in years, and yet they're only able to edge the Hornets by one game. The Hornets won 56 games, and if you take Chris Paul away, they win 30-35 games. He is the creator of everything with that team. If ever there is a season in which one guy stands out in the MVP race, it's Chris Paul this year. Most Outstanding Player? Kobe Bryant. Most Valuable Player? Chris Paul.

Newell: Your idea of MVP and my idea of MVP is different. Because of the multimedia influence on selection, the most visible player has been Chris Paul. The most obvious player has been Kobe Bryant.

5. Who is the best point guard in the playoffs? Who would you want the most for a championship push?

Newell: I've got to flip a coin. Heads is Deron Williams. Tails is Chris Paul. I'm going to be honest with you. It's not Tony Parker. It's not Derek Fisher. It's not Jason Kidd. It's not Allen Iverson. Those two cats are above everybody else. Chris Paul and Deron Williams are in a dead heat.

Brewer: It's really hard because I love Paul, Williams and Steve Nash. But I am going to take Deron Williams. It's a little bit of a surprise. I think that, if you talk about matchups, and you go back to the series he had last year against San Antonio and Bruce Bowen, Bowen could not do anything with Deron Williams. Williams destroyed him. He is the toughest matchup of all the point guards in the NBA. You can't play him physical, because he's more physical than anything you can come with. He can also guard your shooting guard or small forward. He is able to take over games offensively, but he can also sit back and have the eight-point, 20-assist game. He's a solid defensive player. He's a special point guard, and when you break it down the playoffs, when teams have a lot of time to prepare, he's a guy that you're going to have a difficult time figuring out.

Newell: The only problem I have with that is he's got a very sore tailbone, and if we've seen anything about point guards, we know that when they go to the hole, they go to the floor. All we have to do is look at Dwyane Wade. For the last two years, he's been paying for it. He's not been healthy. Deron Williams got hurt again Monday night, went out of the game and came back. This time of year, if you're not healthy, it's going to be tough to set up. And Chris Paul is another one who gets hit a lot. I think it's going to come down to who's the most durable. Spiritually, emotionally, they're going to be there, but how are they going to be physically?

6. What role player could be huge in deciding who wins the championship?

Brewer: I am big believer that the Boston Celtics are going to win it all. So I've got to look to the Celtics for my role player -- Sam Cassell. It's kind of funny: At the end of his career, he's back in the same role that he began his career with the Houston Rockets, as a bench player on a championship-caliber team. I think Cassell can be an absolutely deadly sixth man in the NBA Finals. He's a guy who can score 20 on any given night. I think he's going to be a great leader.

Newell: I disagree because I think Sam Cassell quit playing two years ago and didn't tell anybody. I think he is living off his laurels. I think that the guards that he faces over the next few series are going to expose him. He can't get around anybody anymore. The only way he can get his shot up is if he's left open on a skip pass, and he hits a lucky three. I just don't think he can play anymore. I really don't. I think that, if he does give anything to them, he's a small man's Robert Horry, who comes off the bench for five or six minutes, hits a couple of shots and that's it. He can't play defense. He hasn't played defense in five years. Unless the guy he's guarding has a GPS chip and Sam Cassell has got the monitor, there's no way he's going to match up against any guard in the West.

Brewer: So who's your role player?

Newell: Manu Ginobili. For me, the most critical player in the playoffs, of all the 16 teams, is Ginobili. He can start, or he can come off the bench, and his demeanor stays the same. He's confident in himself, and he has the confidence of his coach. You never see Gregg Popovich take him aside and question what he does anymore. Popovich will take aside Parker and question him. He'll take Bowen aside and question him. He'll take Barry aside and question him. He'll take Duncan aside and question him. But he never, ever questions Ginobili because he knows Ginobili understands the game at both ends of the court.

I visited with the new-look Storm to remember what it's like to cover a pro basketball team instead of a pro basketball fiasco.

It was an enjoyable time and led to a column about how the Storm have revitalized their franchise.

I'm looking forward to this upcoming WNBA season. The Storm have put together one of the most amazing rosters in women's basketball history. Of course, there are no paper champions, so this team has a lot to prove. But I think basketball fans will be buzzing about this squad for quite a while.

In the column, I spent a lot of time contrasting the Storm's excitement with the Sonics' uncertainty. I tried not to go too far with that approach because I didn't want to take away from what the Storm have done. Nevertheless, you can't help but look at the two situations and examine the dissimilar turns the two franchises -- once attached to each other -- have taken.

Thank goodness Clay Bennett sold the Storm.

At least there's something to hold onto here. At least there's one basketball team we don't have to worry about leaving.

Will the Storm win the championship this season? Well, we shouldn't hand them the championship without seeing them play. Sheryl Swoopes missed almost all of last season with a back injury, so we must see how her 37-year-old body handles another season. Center Yolanda Griffith is 38, so her minutes will need to be monitored, too.

But as Swoopes pointed out, aside from those two, everyone else who makes up the core of this team is still under 30. So this isn't an old team. If all works out well, Swoopes and Griffith will provide needed veteran experience to a roster full of players in their primes.

If they stay healthy and play together, the Storm will be a true contender. If Swoopes and Griffith exceed expectations, the team will be unbelievable. And even if this team doesn't play to its potential, it will be a treat for Storm fans to get to know a team with this many influential, even legendary, players.

It feels good to talk about a basketball team's outlook and not have to mention relocation. It doesn't make up for the Sonics' dismay, but it is heartening.

As part of today's column, I reviewed the Seahawks' draft resume under president Tim Ruskell. In case you're trying to remember all the picks, I'll give you the rundown of Ruskell's three drafts. The players who are currently starters are in bold.

2005
First round: Chris Spencer
Second round: Lofa Tatupu
Third round: David Greene
Third round: Leroy Hill
Fourth round: Ray Willis
Fifth round: Jeb Heckeba
Sixth round: Tony Jackson
Seventh round: Cornelius Wortham
Seventh round: Doug Nienhuis

2006
First: Kelly Jennings
Second: Darryl Tapp
Fourth: Rob Sims
Fifth: David Kirtman
Seventh: Ryan Plackemeier
Seventh: Ben Obomanu

2007
Second: Josh Wilson
Third: Brandon Mebane
Fourth: Baraka Atkins
Fourth: Mansfield Wrotto
Fifth: Will Herring
Sixth: Courtney Taylor
Sixth: Jordan Kent
Seventh: Steve Vallos

So you have seven starters from that group (although those starters have had varying degrees of success), and Wilson is also a heavy contributor as the dime cornerback. Remember that conventional wisdom says it takes three years to evaluate a draft fairly, so only the 2005 draft picks have completed three seasons. There is still hope for the 2006 and 2007 draft classes.

The Seahawks have had good success -- particularly when it comes to making solid picks in the first three rounds -- in the draft under Ruskell, but my point in the column is that now they must have great success.

We'll see what happens this year.

As I watched the relocation press conference Friday, I kept thinking about how well the Oklahomans pulled off this heist. I kept thinking about how NBA commissioner David Stern doesn't even try to hide his anger toward Seattle anymore. I kept thinking about how, for nearly two years, this relocation was a veiled plan that Seattle had little chance of thwarting without a united fight.

Then, in a mix of disappointment, anger and sadness, my mind drifted from the culprits and went back to the enablers in today's column.

Our leaders. Our elected officials. They failed us. We've been bellyaching about them off and on with nearly two years now, but on this day, their shortcomings with the Sonics had never been more obvious.

I don't blame Clay Bennett for being a businessman. I do blame him for being disingenuous. I do blame him for targeting Seattle and sucking the joy out of pro basketball here. But the fact is, even though we scream about his bogus "good faith" effort to keep the team here, he probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere on a new arena if he was fully committed to saving the Sonics.

As much as we talk about Bennett giving up after throwing out a $500 million arena proposal, state lawmakers gave up before he even opened his mouth.

I remain strongly against Bennett because it's lame and dishonest to tell people you tried your best to keep the team here when you only allowed a year's window to negotiate, and you quit trying nine months into that year.

But if Bennett is the bad guy, what's that make the Frank Chopps and Nick Licatas?

They're the security guards who fell asleep during this heist. Instead of leading an effort to explore ways to fight for a 41-year institution, they turned arrogant and uncaring.

Now, pro basketball in Seattle is officially on its deathbed. From the beginning, we knew Bennett and Co. were dangerous. But ultimately, for the most blame, we have to look at some of our own.

Shame on our leaders for not making this more of a fight.

Shame on them for making this move inevitable.

Shame on them for ushering in perhaps the darkest day in Seattle pro-sports history.