Actually, you said in reply to me, "Oh please. Giannis has spent 12.5 years in Milwaukee," emphasizing loyalty, not winning.
I'd add that Durant was winning plenty at OKC, and he still bolted. So, your original argument is only good as far as it goes.
However, now that you've clarified, I agree that IF Giannis turns the Jazz into a perennial contender (assuming that betting the farm on an aging and increasingly injury-prone star pays off and doesn't result in the franchise being held hostage to a talented but fragile and perpetually unavailable star), then there's a reasonable chance he could be induced to remain.
However, it's a huge risk to trade for him without any up-front guarantee that he'd resign. If we don't get that guarantee, then don't do it. It's that simple.
While I'd like to win a title, I don't want to do so the Toronto way, i.e., winning a title only to slide into perpetual irrelevance immediately afterward once the star attraction bolts. As I've said, from my perspective, I expect an ROI on our investment in losing to exceed a few years of relevance only to revert back to where we started; I want an extended run of competitive basketball and playoff success. That's the ONLY acceptable ROI for the crap we've endured over the last four years (and possibly longer).
With all that said, we ain't getting Giannis. All this talk about Giannis as a Jazzman is a fanciful delusion. Just like we deluded ourselves for so long that we'd Capture the Flagg.