It's true that perhaps not all ideas or concepts are equal, but I believe you're mistaken if you think yours is somehow "better" because it's more "simple", and quantifiable. Moreover, the vast majority of sports talk in general is almost entirely subjective, and to claim that it isn't is absurd.
Take your metric for example. You define a good scouting/drafting record purely as number of games played in the NHL. That in itself is arbitrary. Sure, it's simple, and easy to quantify and thus compare, but it's nevertheless arbitrary, there's absolutely no consensus on this definition. Moreover, I'd even make the argument that it's reductive, simplistic, and fails to capture what it actually means to have a good drafting record. Of course, according to your conceptual scheme, Timmins has a "good" draft record, but it's nothing more than your conceptual scheme, and the value derived from it is very debatable. I, and I'm sure many, don't see much value in the ability to consistently draft NHL plugs, and it's certainly not an indication of good drafting. Just look at the thread of the list of 1st rounders we've drafted over the last 12 years; that list is pretty shameful.
I think a far better scheme is to determine what's a good drafting record based, as others have already pointed out in this thread, as the number of quality players. Now, surely you'll object to this by saying that player quality is far more "abstract", and difficult to quantify, but that doesn't necessarily make it less valuable, merely more difficult to assess. Your criteria is way too reductive, and fails to even capture what the scouting team is even trying to do when drafting. Scouts don't draft based on their perception of how many games (x) player is going to play in the NHL, they draft based on the (perceived) quality of that player. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to use that as a criteria for evaluating a good drafting record, certainly not as the only criteria. It makes a lot more sense to judge a scouting department based on what their job actually is, rather than some other arbitrary notion that their job doesn't entail.