I really don't get this forum's obsession with hating on Brickowski. Far too many personal attacks and insinuations about his intelligence. The dude clearly cares about basketball and follows it closely. He has different opinions than you do, nobody is right or wrong.
I can easily see what he's saying. Olynyk, Sullinger, et al. have a long way to go before you can say they're the core of a future 50 win team, but if they do somehow translate this early success into continued success, the calculus moving forward almost has to change. If you put Rondo on this team tomorrow, uninjured and at the top of his game, are you sure they couldn't win 40, 45 games? It's far, far, far too early, but a 4 game winning streak has to be taken as a sign to potentially look at re-evaluating what you think you know. Last season's team only won 4 in a row 3 times all season (although twice 6 in a row).
The argument for tanking is easy to make, but hard to implement, especially with a young team and a young coach. These men all have pride and aren't going to want to lose. I'm not going to fault them for that. Yes, it's true that historically, Boston hasn't been a great FA destination, but I don't know why it follows that it must not be one moving forward. The current NBA landscape is very different from the historical one, and whatever racial baggage Boston carried at one point will only continue to diminish over time. It will never become a warm weather city, but if Danny manages the cap well and can offer a max deal to the right FA, Boston can stand a shot. And if the team the FA is joining is already a decent team, he probably stands a slightly better shot...
Obviously, it's far more likely that we'll look back on this little win streak early with fondness for how cute and out of the ordinary it proved to be in a season full of losing. But people are far too declarative on how there's only one way to do this. I really like the post above that points out that the data points for how to rebuild an NBA team in the salary cap era are too sparse for there to be any real empirical evidence that says how to do it. There are failures and successes of all kinds, and if we're being honest, it depends far more on the whims of 18-25 year old men and where they decide to spent a few years than any of us would like to admit.
My last point would be that I think we focus too much on the win totals, if we're to use Danny Ainge's past performance as a future guide. He's shown a pretty clear preference for asset acquisition over pretty much anything else. Even deals like LaFrentz could be easily viewed in terms of salary cap management, draft pick acquisition, and future returns. He tried to hit home runs on guys like Welsch or Marcus Banks. He hit a bit of one with Al Jefferson and even Perkins to an extent. Mixing these players at times produced poor results, but that's probably more coincidental than by design. It seems clear to me that Ainge wants for his players to increase in value, either to the point that they become part of his future rotation or trade bait a la Al Jefferson for Garnett. Winning and losing has an affect on the value of the mix of assets, but I doubt it's his focus. If you look at his actions this offseason, it's really a mirror image of some of his past actions, where he took on some bad contracts to make weight in trades to make continued asset acquisition more plausible. He's always had an affinity for trading, so we should assume that there will be a reshuffling by mid season, as he seeks to alter his asset mix more favorably over time. I honestly doubt there's more of a plan than this, and that's probably by design. The big drawback to tanking is that it picks one strategy that you need to execute on (that requires luck) in order to be successful. I get the sense that Danny prefers to keep his options open, develop tradeable assets, and likely will try to manage his cap so that he could strike via FA OR by trade on a player of his choosing. I have no idea if this is right or wrong, but it's certainly not a crazy plan.