Reyes is a CAREER 106 OPS+ guy.  Not counting  '11, over his last 4 healthy years he's averaged a touch less than 110.    His one full-time healthy year before that he was at 81. and I'm ignoring '09, when he played 36 games. Let's not just give him a series of 120+ years.
He has shown no ability to do that.  He's a very nice 105-110 SS. 
He isn't Ricky Henderson, btw, Doc.  Not at all.  Granted, he's a speedy base-stealer.....but so was Omar Moreno, for goodness sake(tongue-in-cheek).
At age 28, Ricky had never had a fulltime season BELOW 122 and 6 of his 8 had been ABOVE 134.  In those years he had only once had an OBP below .398 and in his first 7 fulltime years he had played less than 142 games only once.  That was in 1981 when he played 108 games.  BTW, that was a strike year and Oakland only played 109 games total.
In the year he was 28, Henderson did only play 95 games....but followed that with 140 and 150 games.  In his first 10 fulltime years, Henderson showed amazing durability, really. He played in about 90% of the possible games, including the year he missed 67 games. 
I know you weren't lumping Reyes and Henderson in the same ability class.  But even durability-wise, Henderson is a poor template for Reyes, who was very durable for 4 fulltime years, and now looks like considerable health risk.  Reyes' breakout '11 performance must be tempered with three season's worth of leg problems.  How often do those just disappear when a player hits 30?
And the last time we invested lots in a speedy, top-of-the-order IF it turned out fairly poorly.
$15M for Reyes?  I pass.

I can tell you why I don't think they'll set the world on fire this off-season.
First, everyone acts as if they didn't try the face-lift before they came in with the sledgehammers for the demolition-and-rebuild.  What about the 2009-10 offseason?
Cliff Lee, a Cy Young winner and October hero
Chone Figgins (remember we're thinking in time-context), coming off an All-Star season with 101 walks and was (yes, he was) tied with A-Rod for10th in the MVP balloting.
Milton Bradley had more red flags than Figgy, but was just one year removed from a .999 OPS and 161 OPS+ that, yes, led the AL in both categories.
Casey Kotchman was mocked plentifully and did, in fact, crater while a Mariner, but if you don't think the underlying fundamentals were there, check out his minor league stats, his 10% career K% (that's super-low) and his 128 OPS+ in 2011.
None of it worked out.  Does it mean they'll never try again?  NO!
Does it mean they are no longer trying to hit the "Ichiro window" (which also coincides with the expiration of Felix' current contract).  YES.
Z got them to buy off, finally, on the retirement of the patch-and-fill approach.  No more Shin-Soo Choos shipped out to shore up 85-win teams.  But it didn't start until the Lee-Smoak trade.
They are, finally, building for the long haul.  You don't think Z noticed how long it took for his Brewer core to reach a championship level?
They will absolutely not start tearing up that core before it even gets off the ground.  [Why the heck would you trade an inexpensive stud like Pineda?]
Nor will they make expensive long-term commitments to 1b/DH types before they see what they've got in Smoak and Carp [which looks to be something pretty awesome, and a lot cheaper].
I could see making an exception for Fielder, since he is a true talent who will only be available this once.  But if the market is hot, he won't be interested, and if the market is soft, I don't know why he wouldn't just stay in Milwaukee.
I have already proposed David Wright and Andre Ethier, but not if it takes ripping up the young core.  If they can be had for a Lee-like non-core group, then go for it.
Sizemore is worth a look but the "name brand" might drive up his cost.  David DeJesus is a guy who's been pretty productive (very low K%) and will cost a lot less.  If you want a RH outfield option, Josh Willingham is a consistent 20-HR, 60-BB guy who's been right around 6 RC/27 for six years in a row.  Not as many fireworks as Casper Wells, but more consistency.
I think that is more along the lines of the aisle that the Ms will be shopping in, although I think they'd really like a 3b more than an OF -- there just aren't really any FA options there.
 

Remember that his best years came during the end of the steroid era, and his .787 OPS from 25-28 compares favorably with Reyes' .815 during the same age range (with his injury in the middle).  Still, he's like Jose Reyes at 90%, my point was that his games played and percentage decline is a good comp.  He only played 2 seasons out of 5 completing 100+ games after 28, and while he was on the field he was quite good, but the problem is he was paid 15 million for a .687 OPS in 2007 when he played hurt, and 15 million in 2008 when he was too hurt to play more than 36 games. 
Reyes is better, but he's still the same template in terms of physical condition and position played, whereas Ricky played much more lenient positions (Center and mostly Left).  It's not just the triples that turn into doubles; it's the doubles that turn into singles and the infield hits that dry up, so that he goes from being a .300/.355/.470 guy to a .290/.345/.420 guy.  I see more years like 2010 for Reyes in the future than years like 2011.  That's still pretty good for a shortstop, but his defense has already gone from great to mediocre and if his hamstrings continue to pop, that will likely slip further.  I don't want to be the team devoting 20% of the payroll to a guy who's a little better than Brendan Ryan (when you count defense).

"Golf Clap!"
Well said.

Nate McLouth as kind of the same thing as Sizemore with less "name brand".  I think he could be had for as little as 2 million.

When I asked the question about Nick is was based on the reality that while Reyes is a very good player ... he is NOT an 8-WAR Hall of Famer.
This is also, to a degree, one of my problems with the push for Fielder.  Yes, any 5-WAR player is very valuable.  But, they are also VERY expensive.  And they are not, (like in-their-prime AROD or Barry Bonds), effectively, a pair of 4-WAR players in a single body.
From my perspective, Nick has a legit shot at becoming a 5-WAR player.  So do Carp and Smoak and Ackley. 
I completely get where Doc is coming from, too.  If you were to land Reyes, then yes, the club adapts.  My problem here is the flippant attitude from the masses in regards to the impact that bringing in a "star" player not only on a specific "fast rising prospect", but also on all other prospects.
The truly difficult aspect of GM-ing is finding the balance between short and long-term variables.  I get that when I offer my opinions that the club isn't quite where it needs to be to take the $20 million FA plunge that I occasionally get responses which effectively say - if not now, when?  There is certainly a danger to being too strident in ones philosophical beliefs.  But, the reverse is not only true - it is what the organization lived through after the Sexson/Beltre acquisition.  Once you make that choice, you are boxed into a corner where you are no longer capable of making that big plunge financially.  And you also (IMO) set yourself up to being disadvantaged in trade negotiations.  When Bedard was being dangled, Seattle *HAD* to give up more and more and more and more, BECAUSE the opposition knew that buying a full-price talent like Bedard was not an option.
For me, too many of the "go get someone" scenarios discount all of the subsequent potential negatives, while often dismissing the possible positive futures where such a move is not made.
I think what puzzles me the most, however, is not the desire to "get rich quick" via the FA or trade market for 'known' quantities.  What makes me scratch my head is that the moves that Jack has made that HAVE begun paying dividends are so easily dismissed for future consideration.
Jack brings in Carp (a 1B prospect a year or two away) in his very first trade.  Then, he flips Cliff Lee for Smoak, a 1B prospect already getting MLB PT.  Z purposefully overloaded talent at a given position -- but not with expensive stars, but with cheap club-controlled prospects.  And 2012 looks like a better than average chance of getting plus production from 1B.
Nick Franklin is an arriving-soon SS prospect.  Why not look for another cheap, but highly regarded infield prospect? 
The immediate response I can hear is that doesn't this violate my complaint about quashing your prospect development train by bringing in a proven vet?  No.  It doesn't.  Bringing in additional prospects STILL presumes that the players must prove themselves.  Smoak, for all his hype, is competing for a slot.  And if he fails, he can be discarded easily.  But, once you sink 8 figures into a player, he *IS* guaranteed a LOT of PT.  He has to fail for a long, long time before you're going to give up.  Think Sexson.  Think Figgins.  And while they get to continue to fail, if you do have additional talent near at hand - that talent is forced to wait.
Me?  I *LOVE* the fact that Z realized that OF was an organizational weakness and went out and traded for not just one OF prospect, but a whole handful.  Trayvon, Chiang, Casper all come in ... and they all come in with Carp showing an MLB capable bat while spending the last year learning LF.
For me, having seen the decision to spend large too early in a rebuilding campaign lead to an inability to spend large when it might have really made the difference later ... I'd prefer to make a different mistake than repeat the previous one.
Luckily, Z seems to be two steps ahead already.  The Figgins deal aside, his moves have generally been solid for immediate and future needs.  I trust that when it is time to spend big on an import, Z will do so.

Carp, Smoak, Ackley, Liddi, Franklin, Seager, Wells, Robinson, Chiang, Pineda, Hultzen, Beavan, and some other pretty things.  If we had just walked into a garage sale we would quickly grab all that free stuff and then wait for a year until Antique Roadshow showed up and we then figured which stuff was a Tiffany, a long lost Picasso, or the Holy Grail.
Breaking news:  We're not winning the WS next year. 
Breaking news II:  If we bring in Votto and trade away Clemens-lite (you know what I mean), we're still not winning the WS next year.
Z  has won my respect after the Figgins disaster/fiasco (the disaster was signing him, the fiasco was backing him over Wak) by stockpiling a whole bunch of pretty things that cost nothing to hold onto and allow them escalate in value and production.
Proceed cautiously.  Remember the Bradley, Silva, Figgins, Sexton affairs.
I'm very excited about next year because a bunch of the pretty things we have are going to turn out to be pretty darn good.
We can add to this team, certainly.  If we do, then Ethier/Kubel-types are the way to go,  because you can get them for something reasonable, you don't break the bank, and because they are reliable producers.
What would it take to get Ethier?  Could you get him for a one-two year extension?  Don't know. I might jump on that bandwagon.  But, realistically, is he just a 3-win improvement on Guti (I'm assuming Wells does have an OF spot next year)?  All the same....Guti is a $12.5M investment over two years and then a $500K buy out.  Guti and what equals Ethier?  I'ld explore that. (Caveat:  I was all over trading Guti, when he still had value last year, for some guy that Boston had soured on...what was his name?  Oh yes, Ellsbury.  Wonder how he did last year?  I should check.)
Anyway...It's been a while since we really challenged, I know.  Patience, however, patience.  We have pretty things and soon the Antique Roadshow comes to town and we really cash in.

For me, the 90 losses doesn't mean you "punt" the next season.  But, to me, it does mean, you should not GAMBLE your payroll flexibility for the next 8 years hoping for a miracle season. 
Personally, I don't view STARTING 2012 with the current roster (and some cheap veteran FA add-ons ... like the 2011 Kennedy selection) ... as punting anything. 
My issue is that I don't believe ANYBODY (including me), has a clear idea of what the club actually needs to turn it into an actual contender.  Fielder and Votto are 1Bs ... but 1B seems to be an organizational strength with Carp and Smoak in place. 
Reyes is an intersting idea, of course.  But, while Ryan's bat was nothing special, he actually LED THE TEAM in WAR!?!  Sorry, but upgrading WAR at your #1 productive position is the *least* efficient method for improving any team.
By sOPS, the worst position for the club in 2010 was CF, (worse even than 3B, thanks to the late season improvement which Seager provided).  But, the roster churned a lot, so final numbers "might" be misleading.  But, what do we see by sOPS in regards to how each position performed offensively compared to other guys at that position?
2B - 108
1B - 90
SS - 90
LF - 78
CA - 74
DH - 72
RF - 65
3B - 50
CF - 46
In 2011, the true disasters were CF, 3B and RF.  Yet, the "big move" suggestions are targeting the juiciest bats on the market - (1B and SS), which were the 2nd and 3rd MOST productive lineup spots for the team in 2010. 
I don't want Fielder, because I think in 2012 the OF is going to be the offensive problem.  But, I have no certainty about that.  Seager could implode and 3B could turn into a disaster again.  But, that's my point.  The roster, as constructed, has so much uncertainty that it's silly to assume that if you spend $20 million, regardless of who it is on, that the spending is efficient ... that it is going to land where it is needed.
And the problem with the "big move" is that you don't get a do-over. 
The scariest truth?  When Sexson and Beltre were brought in ... the club was waaaay more certain that they needed help at those two positions AND they knew they had no significant specs in the wings at those spots that would be blocked. 
For me ... it is not enough to simply say "we need offense".  If you're going to sink 20-25% of your payroll into a piece, you better have a real need for THAT piece.  If you're bringing in a $2 million dollar infielder to play OF on a 1-year deal, by all means, go ahead and gamble on whether he can handle the job with a fall-back of DH or super-sub. 
What if the top FA this year was ... Chase Utley?  Why wouldn't HE be the guy to go after? 
For me, the time to go after the big pay off is when you KNOW precisely what one piece is most cricital (and therefore, most efficient) for improving your team.
 

The reason the offense looks the way it does is that the franchise went 13 years (between A-Rod and the 2009 draft) producing a grand total of two legitimate major-league bats.  Their names were Chris Snelling and Shin-Soo Choo, and needless to say neither one ever produced a full season in a Mariner uni.
We haven't had a Fielder-Braun or a Kemp-Ethier or a Pedroia-Ellsbury or anything even remotely close.
That's why we need a multi-year rebuild.  There was nothing to build on until Ackley-Smoak-Carp-Seager(-Catricala-Chiang-Franklin) and all can do is build up that core as quickly as possible -- because they are that good.
As for the "Felix window," I don't think they are counting on him re-signing, but they are doing what they can to make him a hometown hero and "face of the franchise" and hope that matters, and it very well might.  And build a good team around him.
Obviously, they are way better going forward with him, so I do not think they'll trade him at any point, but play it out the same way that Pujols and Fielder played out.
And yes (as to the other post) from a pure logic standpoint, it makes way more sense to trade Felix than Pineda, but I don't think they will trade either.  I think Z knows their true worth and knows he wouldn't get full value back.  He likes trading guys that other teams value more than he does (e.g., Putz).

Detroit hasn't built an offense in over two decades. They purchase them. And they contend. The difference between Detroit and Seattle is they are willing to spend money on prime ML bats. Other than that, we are better: better pitching, better farm, probably better money generators as well.

Sure looks to me like Alex Avila was the best-hitting catcher in the AL, and a major reason why a 104 OPS+ team rose to 110.  [In the same way that Buster Posey pulled the Giants offense up a several notches in 2010.]
And Granderson was homegrown and then cashed in for other pieces.
Seattle hasn't had a homegrown bat make a significant contribution to the lineup (Seattle's lineup, that is, not Cleveland's) for more than a decade.

I've advocated Prince Fielder simply because I believe he'll be a top-flight hitter for the next half-dozen years, which means that even if we're not great NEXT year he'll be contributing mightily for half a decade after that.
And I don't want 8 million in Miguel Batista and 12 million in Milton Bradley, y'know?  We have the money to spend, so how we spend it is important.
If you can get John Olerud and Ichiro sized contributions instead of one Fielder, okay.  It all depends on how we choose to spend it.  Maybe Sizemore is cheap, happy to come home, and kills it in CF where we desperately need a lift.  I'm not opposed to bargains.
But if we're gonna pay full price, I'd rather pay for a 1-position monster.  The point of stars & scrubs is to swap out cheap pieces that aren't working while locking down pieces that are.  If Seager doesn't work at 3B we have Liddi, Franklin, Miller and F-Mart aimed there, and maybe Catricala if things work out glove-wise.  SS?  A couple of options?  CF?  Guti, Wells, Trayvon.
We've built up options - we still need production.  But I absolutely understand wanting to know which guys are gonna work out before you place bets on expensive pieces.  We can add several smaller pieces on shorter contracts, and in fact I fully expect to.
I just hope they're valuable contributors and not just blocking off several cheaper players who can make the same contributions.
~G