It should be pointed out that the article in question is very good.
Very good and looks at this trade in a very objective, balanced way.
There are 2 common themes I am seeing from those who hated this trade:
1) Ainge waited too long and sold Rondo at his lowest value, thus getting back very little in return for a player of Rondo's ability
2) Rondo is currently capable of reproducing the type of play he has exhibited when his trade value was at its maximum
The article cited here does a very good job at explaining why point #2 is very likely to be wrong. Rondo not only has not played consistently well enough to suggest he was back to pre-ACL tear form, but this year he is playing some of the worst basketball of his career.
The counterpoint will be that he is surrounded by mediocrity so Rondo's play is merely a function of his supporting cast...but how does that support point #1? Didn't we keep Rondo all those years because we had Pierce, Allen, and KG - guys who would hide all of Rondo's flaws?
Let's face it, the ACL tear is the reason this went down the way it did. There is no doubt in my mind that if Rondo never hurt his knee, he would have been dealt last year when his value theoretically could have been much higher. But the fact is he was damaged goods, and Danny/Brad Stevens did the best they could to get him in a position to prove his health (first) and his value on the court.
Unfortunately for us, Rondo didn't prove that latter part to a level that would have forced a team to pull the trigger for a better deal. Otherwise, we made out pretty good, as Lowe wrote.