Isn't Consent for Suckers?

As I wrestle with the EBIA v. Arkison case and the great paper pointed out by Melissa last week, I can't get past a nagging feeling that the argument about party consent to bankruptcy courts' issuing final orders on "core but unconstitutional" matters is more theoretical than practical. Why would any well-represented defendant in a fraudulent conveyance case consent to making the case against them smoother and more efficient for the trustee?! It seems to me (and this was the case in my practice days long ago) that defendants who know what they're doing will throw up any possible roadblock in the way of such a case in the hopes of wearing down the trustee and making settlement more likely and/or cheaper. For example, as EBIA did, fraudulent conveyance defendants for years now, since Granfinanciera, have been demanding jury trials and insisting that such trials proceed before the district court. What makes anyone think defendants will consent to bankruptcy courts' entering final (e.g., summary judgment) orders, even if this is allowed?

In other words, why all the fuss? What am I missing? Even if the Supreme Court holds that individual defendants can waive the Article III concerns at issue in Arkison, will this really change anything meaningfully? It seems to me that the much more important issue in Arkison is the second, about allowing bankruptcy courts to make proposed rulings in such "core but unconstitutional" cases despite the supposed "gap" in 28 USC § 157(b)(1)--a "no" answer on that question would bring the system to a screeching halt. But isn't consent for suckers--and how many suckers do we expect are out there in such cases?