Actually
they did try. According to the timeline at the above article, they ran into problems when people found out...
1. As you pointed out, MLB attempted to ignore the CBA it had negotiated with the union. That was a
much bigger issue than the other two you mentioned. It still doesn't refute my assertion that leagues don't contract teams on a whim - it's a complete last resort.
2. How legally binding Crump's order would have been in forcing the Twins to actually play is open to debate. Without having access to the lease, it's possible that the Twins [or in this case, MLB] could have met the lease by simply paying an amount equal to the revenue the team would have been expected to generate for the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission. As any good lawyer will tell you, "a contract is whatever the two parties agree it should be."
3. Congress wanted to hold a hearing to revoke the antitrust exemption, ... they threaten to do that when some House member's team loses a game on a bad call in the bottom of the 12th - and it's still never happened yet. [The rest of the rant omitted, as it veers off in a political direction not aimed at either party.]
BTW, the Cleveland Barons disappeared in 1978, being merged into the Minnesota North Stars, so the modern NHL does have a precedent.
I didn't say "the NHL has never done it." I said "it's not seen as a good thing" and "it's a last-resort option." Do you think the NHL
wanted to merge Cleveland and Minnesota? Did NHL executives go around swapping high-fives and shouting, "yes, we finally got rid of that hellhole - now, we just need to get rid of the other non-traditional markets and make the league even stronger?"