But what I do know is that 1) it kept two valued owners in the SL; 2) it didn't hinder the time it took to draft; 3) I love the idea of having someone partial to your success to bounce ideas off of during the draft.
To this last point, I cannot express how huge this is for all of us not named Ken. From personal experience, I know that every pick I have ever regretted I would have felt better about if I had someone to tell me at the time that it was wrong for my team.
Or in a different light, if I had to go to the trouble to plead my case about why I thought this guy was the right fit, it may have fostered more debate and steered me to someone better, or at least different.
And knowing that my games played will be split two ways, at least having to speak 27 times or more about the vision of the team ensures that the vision can translate to the co-owner for when he plays the games, especially in regard to this questionable selection.
Furthermore, when I have taken bad picks I don't always know when to stop trying to get the value from the questionable draft pick during game play. I believe having that other co-owner will give the due diligence to either give up on playing that bad pick or they will correctly reinforce the vision you had on draft day and can help you see the pick through to where you thought they may end up by continuing to play your pick.
Lastly, the counter-voice can help you see the weaknesses for when you make the pick, to the point where you can collectively see the need for some other player who can support the weaknesses inherent in your selection.
I really enjoy the fact that we didn't lose Graham and/or Steve for SL 2014. I further think they tapped into well that will yield tremendous results for them in 2014, the well of being able to share your thoughts before each selection about how you feel you should take.