to me, the best comparison is geoff courtnall. gartner has less streakiness, less chippiness/cheapness, and less clutchness, but they were similar players in terms of straight ahead speed, well-placed shots, relative lack of vision/hockey sense but very good (sub-elite) goal scorer instincts. also, ideally suited as a very good second line scoring winger, but often taking on a top line or 1a/1b role on less deep teams.
seems crazy right? geoff courtnall scored 40 goals once, and gartner averaged 40 goals for his entire twenty year career. but if this is their primes (early 90s) and i have the choice of one to add to my top six for a playoff series, i'd probably pick courtnall. the man scored big playoff goals in his prime.
courtnall was a late bloomer. if you count only his career after he left the oilers on, he and gartner have played basically the same amount of playoff games (this ignores courtnall's tenure as a bit player on edmonton's last cup team with gretzky). 128 games for courtnall, 122 for gartner. 109 points for courtnall, 93 for gartner. seven series wins in 20 years for gartner, twelve for courtnall only counting the last 10 years of his career.
would we have rather have gartner than courtnall for the '94 cup run, or hell any of the canucks' playoff series while courtnall was there? they basically play the same game, only gartner is the "better" goal scorer. but i don't think i'd make that trade.
to be fair, gartner's best playoff run came in '92 on the second line with turcotte. those two were the rangers' top line the year before, which was gartner's best season. then new york adds an entire first line to play in front of those two: messier, graves, and amonte. gartner was best suited to that role.
but courtnall produced in the playoffs whether it was on the first line with linden and ronning ('91-'92), on the second line behind bure ('93-'94), or in 1a/1b situations (in washington or even in st. louis at the end of his career).