Marlins Want Turnbow?

Raise your hand if you're still getting interest because of one good season. At least, he's honest.

A low-key pick-up that won't cost the Marlins a lot of money doesn't really sound all that out of the ordinary. Getting Derrick Turnbow isn't all that weird of a transaction (they haven't gotten him yet but are considering him), although his recent production (or lack thereof) make it a bit weird that they would go for him. He still throws hard and has experience, and he is the possible back-up in case Matt Lindstrom falters. What I'm curious about is why they would choose him over Joe Nelson.

In 2005, Turnbow was amazing. He had a 1.74 ERA in 67.1 IP with 39 saves in 43 chances and seemed to be on the verge of becoming on of those hot, young closers we like so much. His K/9 was 8.85, and his BB/9 was even a respectable 3.21. Even then, some warning flags should have popped up. His FIP was 3.20 (1.50 over his ERA), his walk rate was pretty low for a guy who had shown himself to be quite wild (this could have been just Turnbow getting better but now we know better), and his BABIP was .259. Since, his K/9 went up over 11, but his BB/9 went over 6. In 2008, he had a rotator cuff injury that limited him to 6 games, but he didn't need injury. So, the Marlins are possibly going to trust a guy with shoulder injuries and a wild tendency to be a cog in their bullpen. Considering he has received quite a bit of attention, he'll likely get a major-league deal (and has received one from the Giants).

Instead, the Marlins could have kept Joe Nelson, who had 2.00 ERA in 54 IP with a K/9 of 10 and a BB/9 of 3.67. The previous season, Nelson had a 4.40 ERA with an 8.87 K/9 and 4.43 BB/9. His talent level is probably closer to the latter considering his FIP's of 4.31 and 3.45, but that's still as good as Turnbow's without the immediate injury scare.

So why are the Marlins choosing Turnbow when they could have just re-signed Nelson? Don't say age (Turnbow is 31; Nelson is 34) because a one-year contract for a reliever isn't an age risk and three years isn't that much of a difference. The difference, in the end, may just be about money. Nelson was able to receive $1.3M from the Rays, and it is likely he would have received about that much in arbitration. Turnbow probably won't top a million and will probably get about $800K. Is 500K that much of a difference that you would seemingly sacrifice so much? Granted, they are just relievers, and I have said repeatedly that relievers are volatile. But Nelson seems a much better bet talent-wise and injury-wise, doesn't he? If they give Turnbow more than Nelson got, I'll have some more serious questions.