Well, good for him.

I always liked Steve Lavin, and my opinion is, of course, the acid test for coaching hires.

No. Really. He was a relentlessly pleasant guy, upbeat and optimistic, all that. He recruited like crazy. His UCLA teams had a habit of winning big games.

He just had a habit of losing games in the tournament … and then, that 10-19 his final season, and there he went.

Now he has been hired to coach St. John’s, which hasn’t been a national power in a while now. Since Lou Carnesecca, anyway.

This is a good move for both St. John’s and Lavin. For several reasons.

–People in New York have heard of Steve Lavin. If not for this days at UCLA, then for his gigs with ESPN. Lavin is the still boyish-looking guy who does a nice job of summing up games you just saw.  The fact that NYC has at least a notion of who Lavin is … is important, because it’s a crowded sports landscape there.

–Lavin is (or was) an excellent recruiter. Baron Davis, Matt Barnes, Jason Kapono, Trevor Ariza, Earl Watson — all still in the NBA. Twice he had recruiting classes ranked No.1 in the country. (Check the “elite recruiting classes” part of his last UCLA bio.) Now he lands in one of the country’s recruiting hotbeds: New York. It’s a situation similar to one he faced at UCLA: If he can keep the best of the local guys in town, he will have plenty of talent.

—Lavin didn’t exactly stink it up as the Bruins’ coach. He made the NCAA Tournament his first six consecutive seasons as coach, including Year 1, when he woke up with the job one morning when Jim Harrick was fired. UCLA won 20 or more games his first six seasons. His teams got to the final 16 of the NCAAs five times (though to the final eight only once). Then he had that 10-19, which seemed unconscionable at the time, UCLA’s first losing record in 55 years … but then Ben Howland came along and put up an 11-17 in 2003 and a 14-18 this season (albeit with three Final Four appearances in between), so apparently someone other than Lavin can lose more than he wins as UCLA coach.

–Lavin has a feel for the Catholic college system. He didn’t play at one himself (a Chapman guy), but his father was a star at the University of San Francisco, and li’l Stevie had to pick up on some of that. So St. John’s won’t be a shock to him.

And he’s a nice guy. Did I mention that?  He is amiable and amusing (though New York may test that) and a no-excuses guy. I remember that disastrous last year (the Bruins, a losing record?!?) and he was gracious and approachable throughout. He had to know, the final 10 games, that he was a dead man walking, in terms of coaching, but he never was bitter, he never lashed out. He just kept saying how lucky he was to have coached at UCLA. That impressed me.

So. The New York Times is giving him something of a tepid welcome, pointing out that he has never coached on the East Coast (but, then, neither did John Wooden), and that he has been away from coaching since Dan Guerrero fired him …

The knocks on Steve Lavin general fall into two categories — not getting to the Final Four, and failing to keep/improve the talent he recruited. That led to questions about whether he made players better.

Still. I think he can win. I believe it’s a good move by St John’s, even if he is something like their No. 3 choice.

I hope he does well. I believe he will. If he brings in a few guys from New York’s famous playgrounds, he could return St. John’s to prominence and perhaps clear up the “can he really coach?” questions, as well.