I mean, I think you have to have a guy who can keep the players together and working hard, but it's not a simple case of "if we had Joe Torre, we'd be leading the East right now!"
I think you can have a toxic management situation that can negatively affect the team's performance. Look at Bobby Valentine with Boston, I would buy in to believing he negatively affected his team's play because all the players hated his guts. To what extent? Who knows. I'm not advocating that Gibbons is some great manager who needs to stay no matter what, my argument is that giving AA a scapegoat means another year of doing f*** all. If losing Gibbons meant AA and Beeston are gone too, I'm all for it.
To actually mention Cito in a positive light is a joke (referring to glory) as is citing Farrell. I'd really question whether or not you watched the games. I know John Gibbons would not drive a 6 WAR OF who hits 40 bombs per year out of town because he has a natural all fields swing and refuses to try and pull everything, or keep benching a 4-6 WAR 1B in favour of f***ing Joe Carter. I also feel like Gibbons would not peform a late innings bunt with Travis Snider in a close game to set up a situation for Mike McCoy and John McDonald.
Yeah, Cito had great teams in the early 90s. If you actually watched the infuriating things he did, you'd see his success is purely based on luck in managing an already great team. If you'll remember, he had a mutiny near the end of his second tenure and who knows how long the players hated him before they felt the need to do something about it.
Hmm, writing that makes me really glad we have Gibbons. It could be so much worse.