How good was Mike Gartner?

[SeanMoneyHands]

I remember seeing him play in the latter of his career as a kid but I wasn't old enough to appreciate just how good he was. I just know he was like a Dino Ciccarelli lite and was clutch in the playoffs. So in your eyes how good was he?

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

Dino Ciccarelli lite? Clutch in the playoffs? Never heard those things about Gartner. Sort of a low level all star, but at that level for roughly forever. You wouldn't get anywhere noteworthy with Gartner as the best player on the team but he could easily be a complementary piece on a great team. Ideally not the main focal point on his own line really. I suspect that he would be good in pretty much any era because his game was pretty straight forward and his speed would be elite at any time.

 

[Primary Assist]

I'm also too young to have seen him play live, but I've often heard Kessel described as similar to Gartner. It seems like Gartner was elite for a much longer period of time though than Phil and had a higher peak. The main argument in favor of Kessel though is his postseason success with Pittsburgh where he was a key contributor to both Cups.

Ultimately though I think Gartner seems to be a superior version of Kessel.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

Gartner was really a prototypical winger for that era in hockey before power forwards became "a thing". He was a tremendous skater, had a hard, accurate slapper, and could make plays at top-speed. His speed coming down the wing backed-off defensemen and allowed him the space and time to unleash his shot. I'd think that coaching and more disciplined defensive play and gap control nowadays (not to mention better goaltending) would negate some of that, but I have no doubt Gartner would carve out a nice career for himself in today's era too with his elite speed and shot. Kessel is a really good comp imo, but Gartner was faster. No physical game to speak of, and his reputation as an underachiever in the playoffs certainly weighs on his legacy, but you could pencil the guy in for 35+ goals for nearly a decade and a half, which is quite impressive.

Also worth noting that Keenan matched-up the Messier, Gartner, Anderson line against the Soviets' KLM line in the 1987 Canada Cup finals. Gartner wasn't someone you'd consider a defensive stalwart, but his speed allowed him to get back fast on the backcheck and he rarely got caught too deep or out of position.

 

[Dingo]

I think he was similar to Glenn Anderson, moustaches included, but not on a bigrig team.

 

[Pantokrator]

He was always seen as the pinnacle of skating. Very consistent scorer on some really good Caps teams. I reckon he was like Kessel in that he was excellent at scoring, but not someone who you build around. Brett Hull, Bossy, Ovechkin, LaFleur - these wings could really drive the team. Gartner needed more help around him.

 

[The Panther]

I think he was similar to Glenn Anderson, moustaches included, but not on a bigrig team.

Anderson was more like Rocket Richard in that he would blow past defenders wide and cut to the net to shoot. He didn't shoot from distance (or very rarely).

Gartner was more the guy who just zipped down right wing and fired slappers from a fair distance. I do think Kessel is a really good comparison.

 

[quietbruinfan]

I saw Gartner for all but his WHA time. He was extremely fast, a great skater in every way, fairly big had a good slapper, and very good stamina. He would also go to the net reasonably well.
Despite good assist totals, he lacked some playmaking skills through center and around the offensive blueline. I like the comparison to Anderson, though I can see the comparison to Kessel going straight down the wing. Kessel has playmaking skills and vision he did not though.
He was not physical but not a ghost either. That aspect of his game fluctuated a bit depending on his team. He showed signs of physicality early with the Caps,but was a very non-physical player with the North Stars, for example. He is a Born-again Christian, and this definitely contributed wrongly to his reputation as a non-physical player.

His backchecking was not very good, but he made an effort. This also fluctuated from team to team.

He was remarkably consistent in his style as a brilliant skater who nonetheless stayed in his lane. His style and his fitness got him over 700 goals. I often wonder if he could have scored even more if he had started somewhere other than the grinding Caps, but he probably loses production in the last quarter of his career if that happens. He is a very interesting player who is the poster boy for consistency over peak production.

 

[BraveCanadian]

He was pretty good at hockey.

Old school up and down winger.. primarily he used blazing speed and a solid shot off the wing,, and you didn't need pencil in his case to write him in for 35-50 goals a season for like.. ever.

 

[The Panther]

Is there any available footage of Gartner in his only WHA season?

 

[frisco]

Kind of a today's Kyle Connor assuming Connor's production stays consistent for the next dozen years or so. Or Taylor Hall if he had good seasons every year instead of once every four.

My Best-Carey

 

[NyQuil]

I was a Rangers fan prior to the Senators returning to the NHL, and I was always very fond of Mike Gartner. Speed to burn, oodles of finesse.

Scored a big OT winner against Ottawa at a game I attended at the old Civic Center in my Rangers blues.

Another guy that sprung to mind as far as stylistic contemporaries was Russ Courtnall.

Met him again on an airplane headed to Europe where he was clearly chaperoning a planeful of young Team Canada players. Classy guy and friendly.

Always had mixed feelings about the big Keenan-era trades that turfed long-time Rangers like Amonte and Gartner for guys like Anderson, Noonan and Matteau, but the Cup win pretty much validated it.

 

[mobilus]

He was a 8.5/10 version of Mike Bossy with longevity.

 

[Stephen]

Kind of a today's Kyle Connor assuming Connor's production stays consistent for the next dozen years or so. Or Taylor Hall if he had good seasons every year instead of once every four.

My Best-Carey

Anderson was more like Rocket Richard in that he would blow past defenders wide and cut to the net to shoot. He didn't shoot from distance (or very rarely).

Gartner was more the guy who just zipped down right wing and fired slappers from a fair distance. I do think Kessel is a really good comparison.

I like the Kyle Connor comparison a lot more than the Phil Kessel one. Mike Gartner was a road runner but didn't have the casual explosiveness of a Kessel. Kessel also has that sling shot wrister from distance which is very different than the slap shot Gartner used. He also had the sneaky touch around the net. More timely Johnny on the Spot than pure garbage goals.

Someone said Gartner was clutch in the playoffs. I don't remember this trait though he did score the Game 7 OT winner vs San Jose in 1994.

 

[quietbruinfan]

Someone mentioned Russ Courtnall as a comparable, I would say Geoff is much closer in terms of style going down the wing. He just did not have Gartner's discipline, or fitness.
And here it comes, like the late Norm Macdonald. who justified every theory by saying "just like Germans love David Hasselhoff," I will make my favorite comparison: Mike Gartner is a smarter, faster Rick Vaive.

 

[NyQuil]

Someone mentioned Russ Courtnall as a comparable, I would say Geoff is much closer in terms of style going down the wing. He just did not have Gartner's discipline, or fitness.
And here it comes, like the late Norm Macdonald. who justified every theory by saying "just like Germans love David Hasselhoff: I will make my favorite comparison:" Mike Gartner is a smarter, faster Rick Vaive.

I always thought of Geoff as being a bit more well-rounded and physical while Russ was more of a one-dimensional offensive speedster.

 

[vikash1987]

I caught Gartner at the tail-end of his career in Phoenix. Even at that stage, he still had that elite skater/scorer quality to him. Throughout his career, he was a model of class and consistency. Honestly, one of the better players to have never had the chance to play for the Cup in the Finals.

 

[The Panther]

I happen to be in Canada right now (first time in 5 years) and my Mom dug out a small pile of old magazines and such that she wants me to sort through and basically dispose of (or keep). Some are hockey things, and most date from the late 80s. I found a Hockey Digest from late 1988, and the inimitable Stan Fischler does his "Who's Better?" thing with Jari Kurri and Mike Gartner.

Fischler, of course, is a nutter and most here (certainly me) will disagree with his conclusion, but he does provide some interesting points from Gartner's prime years. Notice that he states clearly (early in the 1988-89 season) that both Kurri and Gartner are "future Hall of Famers" -- an interesting point for those who assume Gartner was merely a "compiler".

I'll try to paste in the article scans page by page... hope y'all can read it.

 

[The Panther]

 

[FerrisRox]

I just know he was like a Dino Ciccarelli lite and was clutch in the playoffs. So in your eyes how good was he?

He was not like Dino Ciccarelli at all.

Dino played with a lot of edge and was very chippy and had some snarl.

Gartner was Ned Flanders.... and certainly not known for his post-season efforts.

 

[The Panther]

He was not like Dino Ciccarelli at all.

Dino played with a lot of edge and was very chippy and had some snarl.

Gartner was Ned Flanders.... and certainly not known for his post-season efforts.

So, because Gartner was a standard-level Christian, he's "Ned Flanders"?

A bit rude, don't you think?

Gartner was certainly no post-season stud, but he wasn't poor either -- not by any stretch. When the Caps were competitive from '84 to '88 (in the old Patrick Division), Gartner scored 43 playoff points in 43 games (36 in 29 games in the early part of that span), despite his club usually losing in the first round.

In three playoffs with the Rangers in the early-90s, Gartner scored 14 playoff goals in 29 games. Then, three game-winners (incl. one overtime goal) the next spring with Toronto.

 

[FerrisRox]

So, because Gartner was a standard-level Christian, he's "Ned Flanders"?

A bit rude, don't you think?

No, I don't.

 

[Hobnobs]

I'm starting to wonder if his post-season legacy is because of his time in Toronto and Keenan.

No, he was never mr clutch but he wasnt exactly bad in the playoffs either. Like most none superstars he has some stinkers in there but he also has great performances.

Gartner was a player I wanted on Fedorovs wing. Too bad he was a bit too old by 96-98

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

he also has great performances.

i don’t know 80s gartner well but which performances were great?

imo his reputation is more for his teams taking a step immediately after he left: the caps finally getting out of the patrick, the north stars going on a cinderella run, the rangers winning the cup.

 

[Hobnobs]

i don’t know 80s gartner well but which performances were great?

imo his reputation is more for his teams taking a step immediately after he left: the caps finally getting out of the patrick, the north stars going on a cinderella run, the rangers winning the cup.

He was great in 92 for example. 84-87 for the caps.

Caps didnt improve after he left... They were bounced in the first round... The year Gartner was traded from MNS they were bounced in the first round. Rangers are the only team that was successful immediately after Gartner left and we both know there was more to that than Gartner leaving. So that would be weird if that was the reason.