I just took over a team and it looks like the previous owner promoted a couple of prospect pitchers to the majors before their time and they are getting bombed. Will it hurt their development more to demote them to AAA, or to keep them in the majors? 

they need playing time.  If you are willing to sit through watching them get bombed, they should still improve - I haven't heard anything about performance related to development.  Otherwise, if you are contending and they won't get innings, you may have to demote them and take the hit so they can pitch as much as possible.

I'd trade them for comparable talent. They won't develop properly as a result of being rushed up the ladder too soon, and a demotion runs the risk of stalling development as well. If they stay, you'll also have to accept that they will hit arbitration and FA early as well.

Move them for equivalent talent and you can begin clustering talent at the same minor league level and get your new priority prospects on a solid developmental track. The new owner can either keep them in the majors and pay the price, or assign them to an appropriate level with no penalty. Either way, it's not your problem.

chgunnz, On what do you base the statement that bring rushed up the ladder too soon means players won't develop properly? I'm aware of several owners who say they think that's true, or guess it is, but have nothing to base it on other than their belief that it operates that way. I've had prospects come up and struggle for half a season but continue to develop exactly as expected. Is there a confirmation of that effect from a developer chat or a response to a ticket?

Just personal opinion. I don't read the developer chats.

They will develop in the ML as much as the minor leagues as long as they play. Maybe more with better coaching.

mitchrapp, have you ever seen anything with development related to performance?  If I stuck my 1st pick in the majors right away and watched him suck balls for an entire season, would he develop like normal?  In my experience, I've never tried it out but I don't think it matters.

To the best of my knowledge, development isn't tied to results in any way. 

Posted by bigal888 on 8/2/2010 10:41:00 AM (view original):
mitchrapp, have you ever seen anything with development related to performance?  If I stuck my 1st pick in the majors right away and watched him suck balls for an entire season, would he develop like normal?  In my experience, I've never tried it out but I don't think it matters.

Isn't that what I just said? ml or ML, as long as they play, they will develop.

Posted by mitchrapp on 8/2/2010 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bigal888 on 8/2/2010 10:41:00 AM (view original):
mitchrapp, have you ever seen anything with development related to performance?  If I stuck my 1st pick in the majors right away and watched him suck balls for an entire season, would he develop like normal?  In my experience, I've never tried it out but I don't think it matters.

Isn't that what I just said? ml or ML, as long as they play, they will develop.

yeah, it pretty much is.

it's a combination of playing time and success.. In most cases a stud IFA is pretty  much ML ready from the start. Someone that has decent/close to ML ratings will develop just fine if they have relatively high success. But you are also basing this off different Adv. Scouting.. You may have 6 adv. scouting and see this player as projecting to be Roger Clemens where in reality he probably won't reach those ratings anyway... Most prospects NEVER reach projections. So if you have your best coaching in the ML and you decide to put a guy at the ML level and play every game he should develop the same as he would in the Minors.

do you have any proof that it is tied to success?  I haven't heard of anything in HBD that is tied to how well your team or players perform.