My opinion... not at all.
Basically, this will buy you the ability to swap out an entire blade server w/o needing to rezone the SAN switches or re-present the LUNs to the ESX host. Or, you can shuffle blades around in the chassis. I guess that could be entertaining if you like to mess with your asset mangement people.
On the off chance that your network people like to use MAC addresses for restrictions, VC ethernet may be an option, but I have yet to see anyone who still does this -- and I don't believe VC handles VMs' virtual MAC addresses...
Of course, if you have an adversarial relationship with your SAN team, or if the SLAs for your servers are tighter than those for SAN changes, this could be a good idea for you. In an ESX environment, LUNs are never directly presented to a VM -- unless you are using the new NPIV features of ESX 3.5 and assigning a virtual WWN to the VM and presenting an RDM to that VM -- and VirtualConnect will not help with that (I am not even sure that VC is compatible with NPIV at this point -- someone please correct me if I'm wrong).
Note that this is my opinion and does not necessarily represent that of my employer... :smileygrin:
Doug Baer, Solution Architect, Advanced Services, Broadcom | VCDX #019, vExpert 2012-23