I realize the answer should be No but will this mean a Sens to Hamilton thread in the future?
I don't think this is the way to look at these things. As in, the guy is from or has a business in Hamilton and so maybe they might move to Hamilton.
The relocation of any franchise is driven by what is good for the team owner, the other 31 owners, and the NHL as a whole. I'll break this down:
Personally, I don't see how you generate more ROI on your investment in Hamilton (or anywhere else) over the next 20 years than in Ottawa because of the potential relocation fee which would be equivalent to an expansion fee (potentially much higher in Hamilton actually because of the leafs). Just do the math, are you going to realize a 700 million higher return over 20 years (how an owner looks at it, they are old and don't live forever) somewhere else. Where?
While a move to a much larger US market 'could' provide the other owners with more revenue over a long-period, it's not a guarantee that a Houston or Atlanta will actually work in the short term (see Arizona) and so it's still a risk. Further, as much as the additional revenue would be nice, most of the large markets are very, very profitable already. From a competitive standpoint, why would you want to move small market teams that are handicapped because of internal budgets to larger markets where they can be more competitive. Just sayin...
There is no criteria that you can apply to Ottawa in terms of why they should be moved that really doesn't apply to pretty much all small markets in the NHL. In other words, if the NHL is willing to move Ottawa, or any other small market, then all small markets are up for grabs. This would be really bad for the NHL brand in all those markets.
There is plenty of ROI to be made in Ottawa (see Edmonton value before after new stadium) the other owners (2/3 of which would have to approve any move) are fine with it in Ottawa, and the NHL wants to keep it in Ottawa.