Been wondering how long it would take for the onslaught of emails, comments and phone calls questioning why the Mariners still have to trade Cliff Lee. The Mariners, as you know, won their fifth straight game last night.

Believe me, I think it's a good thing that they are playing better, at least on the defensive side. They are not embarrassing themselves on the field any more. They appear to be better focused. And if they keep this up, then a disaster of a season like the one we saw here two years ago will not be repeated.

But there is a big difference between that and the Mariners still having a chance.

Here's one email I received from a reader.

Gloom and Doom Baker,

Again same old garbage. Mariners season is over, Cliff Lee trade is inevitable, blah, blah and more BLAH!!!!

As Yogi said (remember him) "it ain't over until its over". This is mid - June, not July, not August. I have seen a lead of 13 games disappear in 2-3 weeks.

Yeah, but what did Boo-Boo say? OK, never mind.

That's just the latest. But it began last week, after the M's had won two in a row.

This writer, for Seattle Seahawks Insider, decided to tackle baseball in one piece, which he sent me to review and consider. Here is the thrust of what he's getting at.

So by the numbers the Mariners need to keep their newest ace Cliff Lee around and instead of trading away Lee for unknown prospects the team needs to build around Lee and the other three starting pitchers.

It's not even half way through the season and no matter what the Mariners don't lose anything by holding onto Lee.

So, clearly, there is a segment of the fan base still not quite getting why Zduriencik is going to trade Lee, and probably sooner rather than later. So, let's review.

The Mariners, for all of their winning this week, have not gained an inch on the Texas Rangers, who are also going about beating up on NL teams. The problem is, the teams they are playing are even worse than the NL clubs the M's are facing. We'll be lucky to see the Pirates win even one game against the Rangers. That means, unless the M's sweep the Cubs, they probably gain nothing on Texas before the weekend.

And let's not forget, friends, that the M's are 13 games out.

I've written extensively about the Curse of 1995 in this space and how it has deluded more than just an insignificant portion of the fanbase into thinking that a deficit of a dozen games can be routinely overcome by a team this bad this late in a season.

It has never been routine. Frankly, it's just about impossible for a team this far under .500.

The historical case most comparable to the M's, as far as teams pulling off the miracle Seattle needs, would be the 2005 Houston Astros. They made the World Series despite playing .333 baseball and being 15 games under .500 (15-30) on May 24. But they didn't win their division. Instead, they took the wild-card after being 11 1/2 games out on May 24.

Can the M's do that? No, they can't. We are a month later in the season, and the M's are 13 games out in the wild-card race. The teams they would have to overcome, like the Red Sox and Rays, are much better than some of the NL squads the 2005 Astros overtook to get to the promised land. They are also much better than the Mariners. It just ain't hapening.
.
OK, back to 1995, if we must go there.

The Mariners of 1995 overcame a 12 1/2 game deficit that they faced on Aug. 20, that's true. They also have a two-month head start on that this year. But the problem is, that 1995 team started its late push from a .500 record of 53-53. It was already in third place and also had a better team to begin with. The foundation of a team that would go to four playoffs in seven seasons. They never fell more than three games under .500 all season.

So, they had fewer teams to leapfrog over, were better to begin with and were also just pretty darned lucky the Angels absolutely fell apart. The Angels were not very good after that. They did not go to the post-season until seven years later, when, after some wholesale rebuilding, they won the World Series.

Did I mention that doing what the Mariners did that year, even with those things breaking their way, was something like a once-in-a-generation accomplishment?

This year's Mariners, on the other hand, were once 15 games under .500. They are a team that can't score runs, even when winning. They have managed just 11 runs during this streak, five of them in one game. That means six runs in the other four wins, requiring pitchers to practically throw a shutout each night to have a hope of winning -- which they've done three of the last four games.

No, this can't continue. Hey, it's been great to watch and I'm not trying to take away from that. I'm trying to be realistic because that's what a good front office has to do and it's why Jack Zduriencik can "watch this thing play out" all he wants, but he knows deep inside that Lee has to be dealt. Actually, it's not that deep inside. It's right up there on the surface, as it is with any impartial observer trying to dissect what has to happen next.

Why?

Well, first of all, Zduriencik doesn't have until Aug. 20 to wait and see how this season goes. His absolute deadline for getting value back for Lee, a pitcher who will leave as a free-agent this winter, is July 31. Even if the Mariners lopped off half their AL West deficit off by then -- highly unlikely, given what's already happened this season -- they would still be 6 1/2 games out. That's a formidable gap to overcome. We saw last year how the M's cut bait on Jarrod Washburn while facing a similar deficit on July 31 -- and that was with a better team than this one.

Anyhow, that's just to refute the pleas of the extreme optimists.

The big reason why Zduriencik will trade Lee?

Because at some point over the next three or four years, this team will have to figure out how to score or it will be in the exact same predicament it is right now. At some point, they have to bring in some players and Lee gives them the chance to do that right away.

This team's season is over as far as post-season chances go. It needed a streak like this back in early May when it was falling off the AL West radar. The Rangers are a team on the upswing, unlike the Angels of 1995. And even if they stumble, the Angels of 2010 are still 9 1/2 games up on Seattle and unlikely to blow that advantage.

Yes, the team has to play entertaining baseball from here on out, but I'll suggest they have an even better chance of doing that if they trade Lee and bring in a player or two who might be an upgrade at the plate as of right now.

The Mariners need to start filling holes for next year and beyond and the Lee trade is the best place to start since there is no way he will sign here beyond 2010. He's in line for a $100-million contract, which he probably has a better shot at getting now than he did last off-season, and is not going to take the massive (try 50 percent) discount the M's would need to get to keep him. Why would he give them that? He's been here only two months. Lee isn't getting any younger and these Mariners don't have the players to get Lee back to a World Series any time soon.

We can dream and dream about a 1-2 punch in the post-season, but this lineup is not good enough to get the M's there. It is structurally flawed as a real-life project, or plan. Several players appear to have had their collective abilities as a nine-man lineup, if not as individuals, overestimated, by both the front office and the fans who keep suggesting this could be a playoff team with the right breaks.

When a team keeps averaging 3.4 runs per game and actually scores only two or fewer on most nights -- pumping the average figure up with the odd five-run game sprinkled in -- it is an indicator of a serious problem. You can't just shrug it off to flukey underperformance without first considering that there may be reasons for that. As I've mentioned all week and since last December, this lineup needs more power and perhaps the presence of some will allow other hitters to flourish more to their capabilities.

No, I don't think this entire lineup has underperformed. I think some guys had their abilities overestimated.

The M's now have to fix that and they can start with the Lee trade. If Seattle lands Wilson Ramos, the Twins' catching prospect, they will arguably upgrade at that position beyond what is there right now. They will most certainly upgrade from 2011 onward. And if Adam Moore flourishes next year, too, then it's a great problem to have. But he is not flourishing right now.

If you can add another starting pitcher in that deal, then he has a chance to flourish right away with a strong defense behind him. And if he does, the way Jason Vargas has, then the M's could actually win more games this year without Lee.

Who thought Vargas and Doug Fister would be among the league's ERA leaders? Not me. And if the defense and ballpark is helping them that much, who's to say another fourth or fifth-starter type can't come in and succeed?

Whether your name is Vargas, or Fister, or Slowey, if you give up only a run or two a game you have a shot at winning. You don't have to be named Cliff Lee to do that. The results generated by Fister and Vargas are equal to and actually superior to Lee in many respects. They aren't doing it all on their own the way Lee has. And usually only for seven innings to Lee's eight or nine. But that doesn't matter on the scoreboard. If the defense keeps playing well and the bullpen does their job, then sending Vargas out gets you the same results as Lee. A run or two against. And maybe a win. So, it's not unreasonable to suggest the addition of some bat to the offense right away, even if only a marginal improvement -- along with another starting pitcher to fill some of Lee's void in the rotation -- could leave the team about where it is or better than it was with Lee here.

That's just my take. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the team gets better or worse in 2010. Even if trading Lee makes the team much worse right away, it still has to be done.

This team needs offense to win. It needs to start building some right now, by dealing Lee. Not for 2010, which is already over, but for 2011 and beyond. Otherwise, we'll be talking about this same stuff in July of 2012.