Clickety-clank, clickety-clank, the money goes into my piggy bank

You know, I've really grown sick of the Lakers over the last few years and I ought to talk about the Finals, but outside of Pistons fans and their multiple boyfriends (OOOOOOOOOOH!), I don't think anyone finds this year's series compelling...yet.

So what is up with Phil Jackson?

Rumors of his return to coach the Lakers have been public for weeks, but I was convinced he just wanted to raise his asking price from the Knicks. Why would Jackson, who at this point can write his ticket just about anywhere, want to return to work for an owner and star who ran him and the team's bets player out of town? (Why Phil Jackson would want to coach the Knicks is beyond me as well, but that's a whole other story.)

Money is obviously a motivator for Jackson; how could it not be? I'll never understand why fans want sports figures to pretend that money isn't important. If I was offered two jobs and one paid a lot better than the other, I'll probably follow the money. Doesn't everybody?

Despite all that Zen peace-of-mind stuff, Jackson has definitely been motivated by money in the past. Or have you not seen the Toyota commercials where he forsakes personal dignity and dresses up as some kind of cross between a monk and a Jedi Knight?

For someone completely unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes situation (someone like, say, me), money seems like it would have to be the only reason to go to the Lakers. Well, that and his girlfriend. He's definitely not going for a shot to set the NBA coaching record with a tenth ring.

The Lakers' roster is in shambles. Scan it and you'll recognize a number of names-Vlade Divac, Brian Grant, Lamar Odom, and of course Kobe-but you'll also realize it's just a collection of players, with no overall concept of team binding it together. Kind of like the Yankees.

(I recommend a scan on the Lakers website if you're following along at home, because you get to try to navigate the site through the most bizarre marketing tie-in I've ever seen. Your mouse cursor transforms back and forth between Lakers and McDonald's logos. I'd love to know what the Golden Arches paid for that. It's really annoying.)

The Lakers have a number of young players, only one of whom (Caron Butler) seems to have a chance to become any kind of a real difference-maker, and I'm having my doubts about him.

So the move doesn't make a ton of sense for Jackson (outside of the huge bucks), but what about for the Lakers?

I might be in the minority here, but I think Phil Jackson is an amazing coach, and his closest and only competition in recent times is probably Pat Riley.

Forget winning percentage-though his .725 mark is off the chain-Jackson has a championship percentage of .643-as in his teams have won nine championships in his fourteen years as head coach.

But Miiii-iiike, Phil Jackson's not a good coach, he's just always had the best players!

Fair enough. Many coaches will go their whole career without ever having a single player who reaches the greatness of Shaq, Kobe, Michael Jordan, or Scottie Pippen.

But a lot of coaches have had talented rosters seemingly ideal for championship contention, and fallen short time and again. Rick Adelman, Jerry Sloan, George Karl, Don Nelson...the list continues. So there must be some skill involved.

Jackson's worked very well managing egos in his career-well, except one obvious exception-and his teams are usually in superb condition and well-prepared. He also maximizes contributions from his role players and makes smart substitutions. Sort of like Joe Torre (ahem, in past years), he knows how to deal with a very talented team.

(And insert necessary blah blah blah triangle offense sentence here. I love how the triangle is always said to develop and inspire teamwork-as opposed to other offensive schemes, which require teammates to work actively against one another. Kind of like how football's West Coast offense requires timed passing, while other teams try to keep quarterbacks and wide receivers out of synch to keep defenses guessing.)

While we don't know how Jackson will do with a reloading roster, the fact that we haven't yet seen him in that situation does not mean, necessarily, that he can't be successful. He hasn't been in this kind of situation in the NBA, maybe, but the guy honed his coaching skills in the CBA, so he has experience with no-talent ballers.

The biggest question for me is not the talent level of his players, but the kind of players he has on the roster. In Chicago and L.A., many of his role players were perfect fits for a winning team-guys like Ron Harper, Steve Kerr, and Robert Horry never needed motivating. We'll see how guys like Devean George fit in on a team that probably won't win enough right away to satiate egos.

Of course, all of this is predicated on how well Jackson and Kobe can reconcile their differences, and whether Kobe can sublimate his ego long enough to play on a successful team again. Bryant's track record in this area is certainly underwhelming.

Bryant is a very talented player-not nearly the best in the league, as many have laughably suggested-whose self-centered competitive drive gets in the way of dealing with teammates. Last year was a struggle for the Lakers and may have humbled him. But based off his public statements, I doubt it.

It's a good hire for the Lakers, a smart move for Phil's bank account (okay, I guess he probably doesn't bring his jar of coins to a kindly teller lady, so it's good for his investments or whatever), and certainly good for the NBA. But while Jackson can be expected to lead the team back to the playoffs, a title is, barring major roster changes, completely unrealistic.