Absolutely yes (at least if you believe the author ;-)
Note also that according to him,
the best thing we can do is to throw Scrum onto the garbage heap of history.
So if you believe a short blog post showing no factual evidence to support his claims, then not just hiring a Scrum Master (SM) but the whole of Scrum is a waste of money. Hence stop adopting Scrum asap and go back to the good old process you previously used (or search the author's blog site for his silver bullet method).
We can start to analyse the post a bit. To me his main point seems to be that the vast majority of existing SMs spend their time fighting fires, and don't have time to what he claims to be the main role of SMs, which would be interacting with outside parties and help optimizing their interactions with the Dev Team. IMHO the relevant quote from the Scrum Guide is taken out of context. Interacting with outside parties is definitely important, however it's only a part of what a good SM does. Other chores include
- fighting fires, yes - aka removing impediments from the team's progress
- educating people both inside and outside of the team about Agile and Scrum
- coaching / mentoring team members for better performance
- solving conflicts within and without the team
- helping the Product Owner and the team groom the product backlog
- shielding the team from the outside world so that they can focus on their work
- ensuring the team can keep a consistent pace over the long term (e.g. they aren't overloaded)
That's just what quickly came to my mind, surely a lot more could be added. It's certainly true that if an SM spends almost all his/her time doing only the first of these, it is a problem. However, in the best case it may be a temporary problem, and once the crisis is over, the SM may return to a more balanced activity pattern. On the other hand, if the crisis is permanent, I wouldn't say it's a problem with the role per se, rather with the environment where there are so many impediments and/or removing them is so time consuming that it takes up all of the SM's time. And if you have that problem, it is going to bite you with or without SM, and with or without Agile.
My firm belief is that a good SM is worth his/her price many times over, as without SM, the team may just never get even close to reaching their potential top speed and efficiency. If the SM can help the team double their productivity as well as customer satisfaction in, say, one year, was it worth that one extra salary? Of course, missed opportunities are hard to quantify as they never show up in the balance sheet the same way as salary expenses do.
Try to find a good SM with a proven track record and challenge him/her to bring the best out of your team. You may agree to establish a trial period of a few months, during which (s)he assesses the team and you assess him/her. After that, your SM may be able to predict more accurately just how much better your team can get, and based on that you decide whether you want to continue working together.
All this is not meant to say that Scrum is faultless - it has its limitations and problems for sure, and it may not suit all teams and all products. There are other Agile and Lean approaches as well, like Kanban or XP. I think what is important though is to understand that all of these require a big shift in both developers' and managers' mindset, communication and problem solving approaches, which does not come easy and fast. So my suggestion is to make your due research, pick the process which looks most promising to you, get a good coach to help you adopt it properly, and give it enough time to see whether and how it really works. In my experience, most of Scrum adoption failures are due to people not fully understanding the mental shift required and the depth behind its seemingly simple rules.
Disclaimer: I am a Scrum Master myself, striving to prove day by day not being a waste of time :-)