Here is the link.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3353025

Can someone please explain the logic? I am not sure I understand it. You control him to 2014 and you sign him to a 6 year deal after he has spent 6 games in the majors. They must be thinking that he will get big bucks once he becomes arb elligible. Otherwise, it makes little, if any sense to me.

that's exactly what they think.
still seems odd though... you can buy out those years later if necessary.

Tampa controls the arb and since he'll probably be a super 2 player and get to arb early, and if this kid is that good year 6 at under $3M is nice. Here is a question though if he's traded and that contract makes him an appeal able trade even for a small market team., can he then demand a trade or get free agency early even though he would not be eligible for free agency for 6 years?

No, for two reasons. Firstly, that trade-demand right was taken out of the new CBA, so it only applies to players who signed long-term deals prior to 2007. And secondly, even when it was in effect, it only applied to players with at least 5 years of ML service time.

Thank you I thought not, Tampa has bats aplenty they need young pitching, Billy Beane would send alot to Tampa for shim with that contract.

Clearly, they thought he was Eva Longoria.