Didn't really look at that side of it, and that's a definite drawback.
No way do I want to block Carp either.  But if Carp is fixed in LF, then your impact bat has to be a DH or 3b, and I don't see any attractive options there.  So it looks to me like Carp and/or your new bat have to flex to DH (and share RF with Ichiro more and more often).
For example, if you signed Sizemore, wouldn't that "block" Carp, too -- unless Carp was getting some time at DH?
And Sizemore hasn't had a real season since 2008.  Kubel looks considerably worse by my standards than Willingham, other than he hits lefty.  Cuddyer doesn't look any better, probably costs more, and has the same "block Carp" issues (unless you want to put him at 3b, which I guess he played semi-regularly in 2005, but I don't see anyone advocating that).
In terms of free agents, is there a better guy to sign than Willingham?  cause I don't really see it.  (Assuming no Fielder, Pujols, etc.)
Not being hostile, I'm really asking.

I think neither Robinson nor Wells will be an everyday corner OF bat, because they both strike out far too often, and same thing with Liddi at 3b.
The standards are lower at CF and middle infield, so I have Wells, Tray and Guti compete for CF, and I don't mind which one wins.  I just don't foresee one of those three in left.
I am not worried about Smoak.  Maybe I should be, but I'm not (yet).  All signs indicate he should eventually be MOTO hitter.
I play Seager anywhere they can live with his defense.  He looks like 85-90% of Pedroia and maybe even 100% of Pedroia.
I think they will play Ichiro at DH at least once a week, so having Carp as your primary DH facilitates that (they can just flip).  A DH who doesn't play OF prevents that.
So, to me, any way you slice it, you still have need bats at wherever you're not playing Carp (LF or DH) and wherever you're not playing Seager.
So I guess it comes down to not being a believer in Casper, Tray and Liddi.

Okay, since I've become the prime citation for not going after Fielder, I think everyone gets where I stand on him specifically.
In terms of 2nd tier FAs ... I'm also with Matt.  The club has so much ready-to-look-at talent you essentially can't bring in a body without blocking someone with equal upside.
That said ... so what "kind" of deal might I be pondering or exploring in regards to getting better NOW?
I've mentioned Kemp already.  Why?  Because he's youngest of the big bats and he's also a plus defender in a position where the club was a disaster in 2011.  Kemp is probably not available.  But, to me, he fits the current Mariner "needs" better than Fielder does.
Another name that has come up is David Wright.  If you're going to spend large, I'd prefer to spend the money where the club was weak in 2011.  Mind you, I'm a Seager fan.  And while my preference would still be to see what we've got before jumping at the big score ... Wright is 29 next year, and as a 3B, he fits in much better with where the club was weakest positionally in 2011.  He's also coming off a down year, (buy low), and has played his career in a pitchers park.
I think one of the variables in my calculations is the desire to avoid "buy high" candidates as much as possible.  Fielder and Reyes are each coming off solid years, (Reyes a career year).  Even as some of the savvier pundits note that Reyes has injury issues and 2011 was a career year, the group think position on Reyes has many treating him almost like AROD of 10 years ago. 
Note also that this variable would have me wary of going after Kemp "at this moment".  (Remember, my basic position is to wait until next year to make the big move, after we have a clearer picture of what the club actually needs).
But, if you aren't going to wait until after you know which prospects are the ones who are going to stick ... then my argument would be it becomes absolutely imperative to upgrade your offense precisely where you are the weakest at this specific moment.  Those positions are CF and 3B.  In absolute terms (and even relative to position), 1B and DH trailed only 2B in actual 2011 production. 
While I see 1000 different plausible scenarios, the one I'd rank #1 at the moment for 2012 would be something like:
Casper's bat is solid productive, but he proves to be a solid LF ... but not up to manning CF.  So, Guti is playing CF, and struggling to post a .600 OPS.  Carp and Smoak and Ackley are hitting up a storm.  But, since Casper is productive, Carp is getting most of his time at DH.  The other OF prospects were deemed to be not-ready-for-primetime by the club during ST.  Ichiro is batting .700 and stealing bases.  Ryan and Seager are putting up adequate batting lines, but nothing special.
Thanks to stellar pitching and an offense that is approaching average, the club playing .500 ball.  The positions of need are CF, Catcher, RF and 3B.  Z starts spinning up a trade to upgrade.  Realistically, he cannot upgrade RF.  Ichiro isn't playing bad enough where that will sell, but not playing well enough to not need to upgrade somewhere.
So, by mid-2012, the club could REALLY use a CF, because if they can plug CF, then in 2013, someone from the OF prospect pool probably will be ready to step in for Ichiro. 
The problem with getting Fielder to START 2012 is that it moves Carp to a fixed position in LF and if Casper cannot handle CF, then you still have the same need come mid-2012 ... except you've already spent $20+ million to get you to the same spot.
Other scenarios would include a productive OF, but a disaster at 3B.  Going after Wright or ARAM or Youklis or Reynolds might be the best move to improve.
My position is still that the club doesn't have a clear idea of what it needs.  And a year from now, it could turn out to be that Fielder is exactly what the club needs (and needed), IMO, that is only likely if Smoak or Carp implode.  And, frankly, if Smoak or Carp implode at this point, then the club has too many holes for Fielder to make a difference anyway.
Me?  I don't believe in the once-in-a-lifetime scenario.  There WILL be another Fielder next year.  Just like people postulated going after Tex ... and then Dunn in previous years. 

And what it boils down to is that we only have five hitters that I believe in, and would like to have at least six.
And, yes, I would "shove" Wells to either CF or the bench.  That doesn't mean I view him as a "failure," it means I don't view him as an "everyday bat" at a corner OF slot.
I view him as Olivo without the chest protector.  If you had to play Olivo at a corner position and bat him 5th or 6th, your lineup is not very well constructed.  Ditto with Wells.
Interest in Willingham has nothing to do with Carp.  At all.
 

Robinson and Pegeuro both had exactly 155 PAs, and Peguero was better in pretty much every category.
I draw a distinction between guys who struggle contrary to their minor league track record (Smoak, Seager, Carp, even Ackley in Sept.) and guys who struggle in perfect harmony with their minor league track record (Robinson, Peguero, Wells, Liddi).
We saw an Olivo-Peguero offense in May and June.  It was .219/.277/.354 -- whiff whiff homer whiff.  Sometimes it works if you have awesome pitching, but it's not a recipe for success.
I, personally, don't see any reason why Wells-Robinson is different from Olivo-Peguero.
That being said, I have come to love guys like Olivo in a glove position batting 7th or 8th, because they can change the scoreboard in a way that your plain-vanilla glove guy won't.  Wells and Tray can do that for me all day long (CF and bottom of the order).   But not at a corner spot.
+++
Pedroia churned out doubles while maintaining an ultra-low K%.  That's why I see the Seager comp.
+++
Unless Impact Bat is a 3b, I would have Carp, Impact Bat and Ichiro share the corner spots and DH.  Therefore, Impact Bat can't be a pure DH (they want to/need to have Ichiro at DH every 5-6 games going forward -- cost of doing business).  So I flex Carp among DH and corner OF, depending on who is the Impact Bat.

Spec,
My apology.
I did not mean to sound like such a jerk.
I'm a big Willingham fan...he's a fine player...but not as a Mariner acquisition that shoves young talent (who might actually be productive players when the M's get decent) aside.
Wells to Center and Willingham to LF or DH and Carp (who must play everyday in my world) manning the other (or 1B with Smoak at DH) is a move I could live with, as I said.
But his gloveless LF play and projectable decline makes him a reach.
If Willingham rather than a young guy means we go from 79 wins to 81...then he isn't worth it.
My apologies for my rudeness though.
 
Keith

I would rather play young talent, too.  I just don't think we have enough of it, because I don't believe in Wells, Robinson, Liddi or Peguero.  That's just my view.
I'd love Fielder because he is a long-term piece that is almost guaranteed to succeed, but I don't think there's a snowball's chance of it happening.
I advocated David Wright or Andre Ethier a long time ago, and would give up a Cliff Lee-type package for either, but who knows if they'll even be offered?
Absent that, then I think we do need some short-term mid-range help because as much as I love Ack, Smoak, Carp, and Seager, and believe in the future of Catricala and Chiang (which I do, unlike the whifftastic four above), that's still not enough guys to have a solid 1-6 batting order every day (at least not in 2012).
And Catricala and Chiang haven't even played a game at AAA yet, so I can't really be worried about blocking them.

...that another Fielder will be available next year or most any year upcoming, then I would completely agree with you, Sandy. I think the primary reason people are advocating pursuing Fielder despite the less-than-ideal timing is because they strongly disagree with you precisely on this point.
If it turns out you are correct, then the argument to sign Fielder (the only way to do so being when he is available, which is now) pretty much falls apart for the reasons you outline.
If we had an option equal to Fielder (a VERY rare bird when you consider age) available even as soon as the 2012 All-Star break I would agree we could use the opportunity to figure out just what we want to keep and what we can part with. Most don't believe we will have that option then or any time in the next few years.
:chuckles:
I'm not sure we actually have that option NOW, in any real sense, at least on Fielder's part and perhaps, despite Zduriencik's comments, even on the part of the Budget Police on Royal Brougham.

Some big names who have changed teams recently
 
2009 - Teixeira
2009 - Dunn
2010 - Holliday
2010 - Granderson
2010 - Beltre
2011 - Werth
2011 - Dunn
2011 - AGON
2011 - Crawford
2011 - Beltre
2012 - Fielder (pending)
2012 - Pujols (pending)
2012 - Reyes (pending)
Part of my dismissal in regards to Fielder being a "You Must Call in the Next 5 Minutes or You're Doomed!" offer ... is that I recall precisely the same rhetoric being espoused about how much we needed to go after Teixeira when HE was on the market back in 2009.  He's under 30.  He's a subperb bat.  Guys like this don't come along every day.
Heck, at that time the club didn't have any obvious 1B talent - so the bulk of my argument against Tex was that he had already peaked and that his production was going to drop a LOT faster than most people expected.  (Just fyi, Tex this season posted a 2.4 WAR (101st in baseball), which put him slightly behind Ackley (2.5 WAR in his 376 PAs), and even further behind Brendan Ryan (2.8 WAR - leading the Ms, but ranking 82nd on the WAR-O-Meter).
I'm sorry, but it's a real hard sell for me that another Fielder isn't on the horizon when Tex moved in '09, Holliday moved in '10, AGON moved in '11 and Fielder is moving in '12. 
The argument that there won't be a 5-WAR player that is a good fit for Seattle's needs a year from now ... that I can buy.  Then again, part of my argument with Fielder is that he isn't a good fit for Seattle now.
 

oops.  didn't realize that using the name of the diety along with "forbid" was profanity. 
So we sign a gloveless Willingham just so we can shove Wells or [no profanity, please - admin] Carp to the bench?
 
Uh....That one is easy, peasy, lemon squeasy....
A big negatory!!!
Who thinks this stuff up?
(If Guti is traded for something helpful and Wells is in center, then a Willigham signing is much more worth thinking about...but no lock because of his terrible glove and advancing age)

But whether you can GET him to the Northwest that's the issue.  Many of the deep-pocket teams have 1B locked up, so they're currently out of the Fielder bidding.  That helps us, as does Jack being the guy that drafted him.
As for "there's a new one every year" idea:
 
It isn't every baseball winter that free-agent mashers such as Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder hit the market at the same time -- at the same position, no less.
What you have here is something extraordinary -- something, in fact, that gets more extraordinary the more you think about it.
Albert and Prince are two of only six active players who have hit at least 30 home runs in each of the last five seasons. (More on that in our Triviality section.)
They're also two of just seven active players with at least 200 career homers, a .900 OPS, a .535 slugging percentage and a .389 on-base percentage. And they're the ONLY two players in that group who are younger than 35.

Fielder is YOUNG for a FA.  He's a cog for a long time.  Josh Hamilton will be what, 32 in his 2013 free agent appearance?  Fielder is 3 years younger and on the market a year sooner.
It's not just about getting a 5 WAR player, it's about getting one who will be great for years to come.  
Again, I don't think we're going to do it.  And there are plenty of other ways to spend money and/or prospects to improve this team.
But there are reasons that Fielder could be a fit as a 5-WAR player here.  And if that inconveniences Smoak, well, Jeter playing SS inconvenienced A-Rod, and A-Gone playing first inconvenienced Youkilis, but both teams made it work to get the bats in the lineup.
The big boys stack the deck, or at least attempt to.  If Smoak has to move between 1B and DH to get plate appearances, but the benefit is that both DH and 1B are stronger?  I can handle that.
It'd be even better if the Ms can home-grow their own 5 WAR players.  I'd love for that to be the case.  But you can never have too many of em, IMO - and hitters are safer bets than pitchers for places to park your money. 
~G

There aren't any elite free agent hitters next year. Anyway, even if there was one, the M's wouldn't be the only team looking to sign him so it's not as if a Mark Teixeira were available then the M's could act like they've got him locked up right now. So to assume that you can get an elite player to fill whatever you're weakest spot is whenever you feel like is incredibly foolish. Most likely you won't ever be so lucky which means you can't operate as if everything will naturally fall into place. You need to be pro-active and get quality players when you can, even if they aren't a perfect match.
Take the Phillies. In 2003 they signed Jim Thome to a gigantic long term deal even though they had Ryan Howard in the minors. Did this set them back? Was this a huge mistake? No, they got two years of big time performance out of him and when Howard was ready they traded Thome away and continued winning. They made it work, and they didn't have the luxury of using a DH (and the M's don't have a Ryan Howard waiting in the wings).
You are also presuming that the M's can only acquire one star player. That isn't the case. Ichiro's $18 million comes off the books next year which means the team will likely be able to add another major player even if Fielder is signed.
There is another factor that everyone advocating the wait-and-see approach aren't addressing. The attendance at M's games is dropping and will continue to drop as long as the M's struggle. That means the franchise is missing out on a massive amount of revenue and it is only getting worse and worse. If the team wins again, they will make a lot more money which will off set any ineffeciencies there may be in signing Fielder. He could in effect pay for himself. But if we continue to be a boring, no-offense team for the next year or two, there will be less money available, which means even if the PERFECT guy does become available (and again, that most likely will not be the case), it will be either harder to sign him or the team won't have as much money left over to fill out the roster.

In 2002, the Phillies won 80 games and spent $58 million and had not made the playoffs since 1993.
They went out and got Thome and Millwood and won 86 in 2003.
Year - wins - $
2002 - 80 - $58
2003 - 86 - $70 - (add Thome/Millwood)
2004 - 86 - $93 - (add Milton / Wagner)
2005 - 88 - $95 - (no major additions)
2006 - 85 - $88 - (dumped Thome after '05 - trade Abreu in July)
2007 - 89 - $89 - (Rollins @ $8 million only bat on team > $5 million)
In point of fact, the Phillies didn't "choose" to bring up Howard.  Thome got hurt and had season-ending surgery in 2005, so Howard's 88 game ROY season in 2005 was forced upon the Phillies.  It was only after Howard proved he could hit .900 in the majors that the Phillies started looking for a trade partner.
The winning also coincided with hiring a new GM, (because the guy that actually spent the big bucks on the high priced bats never won anything).  Gillick comes in, dumps the expensive bat - brings in Aaron Rowand, Greg Dobbs, Wes Helms and Jayson Werth and Philly wins the East.
Today, the Phillies are paying big money to RETAIN their home grown hitting talent.  They're sinking the bulk of their FA money into arms.  I see the Phillies as a clear case where my theories regarding big bat FA acquisition are completely supported.
FACT:  They spent a lot on Thome - they never won anything while Thome was there.
FACT: They dumped Thome for home grown talent - and picked up a number of meh under-30 guys who were hungry to win.  They won immediately.  The only significant FA money they've spent during their 5-year run was on Ibanez, who gave them two good years and one poor one.  But, Ibanez was never considered a 'savior' team leading bat.  He was solid, veteran filler for a team rife with star bats before he arrived.
The Phillies problem today?  Their entire offense is over 30 and the offense has been getting steadily worse since 2007.  The mega-rotation allowed them to continue their title string.  But, their offense has gone from 892 runs in 2007 to 713 runs in 2011.  They have managed to assemble a day-to-day lineup not far removed from the 2003 Mariners. 
In order to stay on top as their offense fades, they have effectively doubled their payroll from 2007 - ($89) to ($172.9)
And just fyi, Phillie still owes Thome another 1.25 million in 2012. 
The Phillies may have one more year in them ... but if they don't make some significant moves to make their lineup younger, they will likely crash a lot like the 2004 Ms.

I would just like to add ... in my estimation, it is far easier for a team to attract a big bat to an 85 win team than to a 65 win team.  When a 65-win team dips into the FA market, the typical result is that they are forced to spend for more WAR than they are actually getting, (Werth to Washington is an example).
The best a losing team can hope for typically is that if a stud FA cannot get the years he wants, he might take a juicy 1-year deal in a place where he can just work on padding his stats, (Dunn to Washington is an example), until he can get the mother lode.
 

It's one thing if a player will take 18 million a year to play in LA but requires 25 million per to play in the Northwest.  When a bottom-feeder requires a "you suck" tariff on top of the standard payment a free agent would get, it can hurt too much to make it worth it.  Better to get some lesser lights, improve, and not get bent over the barrel with a price hike for the stud you wanted.
Jack doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who gets bent over by anyone.  I would hope that if Fielder came here it was because we ponied up what others were offering and Fielder liked the plan, the field, and the potential of the team going forward. He knows Jack.  Hopefully that helps. ;-)
But our main competition would appear to be the Cubs, who are a big-city team but won just 4 more games than we did last year.  If it's just about 85-vs-65 wins, then we're at a disadvantage to some teams, but not to the Cubs.
If he wants a bigger spotlight then Chicago would provide one.  If Chicago can choke down 7 x 22ish when they don't have a DH spot, that is.  But Prince loves baseball, doesn't appear to be a fame-chaser, and seems more at home in a place like Seattle than in Chicago.  If Jack can sell him on that, and on our future ("Hey Prince, you know how we never got you a pitching staff in Milwaukee?  Let me show you the cupboards here...") then I wouldn't count us out.
If we're willing to pony up the going rate, that is.  Boras will never go for a discount, but he's never charged us a fee for being a media backwater, either.  Of course, we weren't losing then like we have been recently...
~G

I made 5 different points, and you picked out a single one and ignored all the rest. Come on.
Let me make it easy for you:
1. There aren't any elite hitters available after next season so your "wait until next year to sign a star" strategy is already clearly off the mark
2. Even if there was a star hitter available next year, he's not likely to be the PERFECT fit you think is the only type the team should acquire
3. Even if there was a star hitter available next year, there will be other teams fighting to get him so the M's can not at this time act as if he's already in the bag
4. This team is missing out on millions of dollars in revenues because of its poor play and the longer it goes on the worse it gets and the harder it will be to turn things around
Can you please respond to those points?
As for the Phillies, I brought them up because they did not pursure your philosophy of only spending huge bucks on a single player when they knew EXACTLY what they needed. They grabbed a guy who could help them right away without fretting over whether or not he was "perfect" for them. Doing so paid off handsomely with the team going from a Pythag 79-win performance to a Pythag 90-win performance. They also saw over 640,000 more fans pay to watch them play, a whopping 40% increase in attendance. His entire salary that year was paid for by the increased ticket sales alone! And when they had another young stud first baseman come along who was blocked by Thome, they dealt with it at that point and kept on winning.
If in two years the M's are in the terrible position of having both Smoak and Fielder performing great and another slugger tearing up Triple-A, they can deal with the "problem" at that time. Similarly, if in 2013 the team needs a center fielder, the org can worry about the issue then. To not fill a hole now because another hole might pop up is self-defeating, especially when waiting to fix the team means you'll have less money to go around.

But especially this one: 
4. This team is missing out on millions of dollars in revenues because of its poor play and the longer it goes on the worse it gets and the harder it will be to turn things around

Attendance is a lagging indicator - you have to get better in order to increase ticket sales.  But signing a marquee talent can help you cut down on that lag time, and get people to the Safe in May instead of August (or the next May). 
Since the Ms have already admitted payroll is DIRECTLY tied to attendance gate, then we need to improve attendance to open the purse strings.  Winning will do that.  The question is how you'd like to attempt to win and how you want to set your team up for the winning.  If the Ms sold 640,000 more tickets next year because Fielder is here and we are a fun, winning team with an exciting young lineup and Cy Young pitching, Fielder is a BARGAIN.
Sometimes you're better adding a Jamie Moyer on the cheap.  Sometimes signing the Big Unit to a huge deal wins you a World Series.
Sometimes signing A-Rod does zero to help his new team or hurt his old one, and other times Barry Bonds moving coasts swings the fortunes of two teams for a decade.
Figuring out which guy to add to get to where you wanna go is an important skill, one I pray very often that Zduriencik has.
~G

Not to speak for Sandy but you do realize that the list of available talent is never limited to the players on the free agent list, yes? Every single year, MAJOR talent - Cliff Lee level talent - moves in trades. Some percentage of that 2014 free agent list will be traded before they hit free agency.
The last thing the club can afford to do is go into a negotiation with Fielder (or any player) thinking that he's the only option that they will have in the next 24 months. That's a good way to Bavasi an off season in a hurry.

And so I can't say that the M's must sign Fielder because I don't know what players are available in a trade right now. I also don't know how much Fielder will cost. But that's not what this discussion is about. Sandy isn't saying that the team should trade for an elite player right now who is a better fit, he is saying the team shouldn't make ANY major commitment right now. He is saying the team should wait another year at least before doing so, and I'm trying to explain why waiting isn't clearly a superior move but in fact has a lot of pitfalls.

Right. Determining a course of action as if it is the only course of action but before you've made a reasonable investigation of all your options is stupid. Determining a course of action and doggedly taking it no matter whether you can match the benefit with the cost is equally foolish.
I don't think anybody is saying absolutely the M's must sign Fielder and no one else, and they must sign him no matter what the cost.
The assertion is being made by the "no on Fielder" crowd, that assertion being that you simply DO NOT EVER sign Fielder under the current circumstances of the team. The opposition crowd is not a "must sign Fielder" crowd, it is a "may sign Fielder" crowd or, at most, a "must strongly consider signing Fielder" crowd marshalling counter-arguments against the "no on Fielder" crowd.
 

If the market is soft and he's looking at a mid-sized market, why wouldn't he stay where the championship core is already in place?
If the market is hot, then I think Seattle has a hard time getting in the mix in the first place.  The Cubs have very rich new owners that want to make a mark, and the Miami Marlins (yes, they are now "Miami") are in "Extreme Makeover: Baseball Club Edition."  They want to sign Pujols and Reyes (in addition to new name, unis, ballpark, etc.), but if they don't get Pujols, I expect they'll make a run at Fielder.  They've been keeping their powder dry for exactly this moment.

1. There aren't any elite hitters available after next season so your "wait until next year to sign a star" strategy is already clearly off the mark
Bedard wasn't on the FA list when he was acquired.  Cliff Lee wasn't on the FA list when he was acquired.  Who will be available 12 months from now (or 6 months from now) is a fluid situation.  And some of what makes a player available is the performance of a team.  It is unknown at this moment which of this year's FAs will sign long term deals and which will sign 1-year deals because they cannot get the green they want immediately. 
2. Even if there was a star hitter available next year, he's not likely to be the PERFECT fit you think is the only type the team should acquire
Fielder, (IMHO), is very nearly the worst possible fit for the Ms given their current lineup and 2011 production.  They have a 1B (Smoak) and a DH (Carp) already.  But I have already conceded that this is one of a hundred ways to view the current situation.  My argument is not for a 'perfect' fit.  It is to wait until you actually have at least some idea of what you actually need.  My position is that given the amount of uncertainty about the current roster, it is effectively impossible to reasonably assess need at all.  And some have suggested that if the 1B/DH slot is too crowded, just move Smoak or Carp to get what we need.  That, of course, makes an even larger assumption - that we can find exactly what we need AND that Carp/Smoak will be exactly what we need to surrender to get it.
3. Even if there was a star hitter available next year, there will be other teams fighting to get him so the M's can not at this time act as if he's already in the bag
There are always teams fighting for FAs.  So, I don't see how this is relevant whether you're going now or next year.  In all honesty, I view this argument as not far from, "we need to try to do something dumb today, because we might not succeed at doing something smart tomorrow." 
4. This team is missing out on millions of dollars in revenues because of its poor play and the longer it goes on the worse it gets and the harder it will be to turn things around
The club won more games in 2011 than in 2010.  "The worse it gets" doesn't apply, unless you actually believe the club will win fewer than 67 games in 2012 without Fielder.  And if you DO believe the club is less than a 67-win team, then why would Fielder make a positive difference in attendance?
I've heard the argument for "star power" leading to revenue.  It's generally false.  Wins and making the playoffs lead to revenue.  In Seattle specifically.
2003 - 93 wins - 3.2 million attendance.
2004 - 63 wins - 2.9 million attendance.
2005 - Add Sexson and Beltre - 69 wins - 2.7 million in attendance
2006 - 78 wins - 2.4 million attendance.
2007 - 88 wins - 2.6 million attendance - (so, was it Jeff Weaver, HoRam or Vidro that brought in the extra 200,000?)
In 2008, the club added star pitcher Erik Bedard.  Wins plunged to 61 and attendance dropped to 2.3 million.  One could argue that the Cliff Lee 2010 attendance drop to 2.0 million might apply also - but I would skip that one since he was only here 1/2 season.
In 2005 specifically, Beltre was coming off a 48-HR season where he just missed the MVP award.  Sexson was coming off a year mostly missed due to injury.  But in 2001 and 2003 Sexson had hit 45 HRs.  Attendance dropped 200,000 in the year they arrived.
So, in Seattle specifically, the last two times the club actually went and snagged expensive, big name free agents (2005 and 2008), attendance dropped in both of those seasons.
To find a big name, high priced FA signing in Seattle that corresponds to a rise in attendance, I believe you have to go back to Ichiro.  Of course, Ichiro was a high priced FA who was added to a team that was already winning.  And, of course, the central point of my argument has been that you are better off adding the high priced FAs after you have started winning without them.
In truth, Seattle's history seems to demonstrate a preference for home grown stars - and such a preferance is typical in baseball fans.  Fans are FAR more prone to support home grown bats than imports.  The last two winning seasons, (2007) and (2009) ... who did the fans latch onto?  Was Jose Guillen viewed as a savior?  Vidro?  Beltre?
Felix and Putz were the primary focus of good will (and probably merchandise sales) in 2007.  In 2009, it was Griffey's return that was the focus of the fans.  He wasn't the most productive player, but he (and Felix) were still the fan favorites.