Location absolutely matters. Its not the only thing. Organization, chances to win, location,. I remember when hamhuis turned us down to go to Vancouver to be home. Eaves just talked about it on nhl radio on his trade. Canadian teams have admitted it was difficult to get free agents, especially on oil city that was on nhl network.
So yes... it matters.
Hamhuis wanted to go home. He didn't want to go to Vancouver because of the weather. Same with Parise and Suter. They went to frigid Minnesota because it's home.
Some of the smaller, isolated teams have trouble attracting players (ie. Winnipeg, Edmonton), but cities like Toronto and Montreal in Canada, and cities like Chicago, New York, etc. in the US don't, even though they're a lot colder than places like Florida or Arizona.
Which is my point. If weather (which I focused on as a disagreement) was a big factor, then those warm cities would be drawing a lot more free agents than they do. Location matters, but not because of geography. Location matters in the sense that they'll chose a location based on quality of organization or, in some cases like the above, if they're from there. But not weather.
Players want to win and they want to get paid. Preferably both. That's the biggest driving factor. If it weren't, then you'd be seeing teams like Florida and Arizona attracting more free agents than the Rangers, Leafs, or Chicago.