The reason baseball has an antitrust exemption has nothing to do with the practice of economics or the otherwise rational functioning of the law.  In Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Club, 1922, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: "personal effort, not related to production, is not a subject of commerce"  and therefore not subject to regulation under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.  How do you like that?  How many times have you heard some player, manager or executive say:  "I understand this is a business."  Sounds right, but under the law, we still look at baseball, excluding the changes from the Flood Act of 1998, as "personal effort"!  In other words the law of the United states views MLB's multibillion dollar yearly exercise as a game, a pastime, a noble pursuit something like jousting or polo or fox hunting.  For a nice write-up on the history of the exemption, see http://www.slate.com/id/2068290/

So, when you refer to "forcing" large-market owners to cough up revenue to reduce financial inequality based on LOCALLY derived revenue, you have to remember that baseball's antitrust exemption allows the league to prevent franchise relocation.  And so, if you own a team in a small-market  city, you are stuck in a way that no other business in this country is stuck, and your ability to compete is also stuck, and there's nothing you can do about it except appeal to a small group of other owners whose own interest dictates that they keep you stuck, how the hell is that supposed to work absent some kind of voluntary equalization on the part of the cartel as a group?

You refer to the term "Lords of the Realm" so you're apparently familiar with Helyar's book.  I was thumbing through it last night (got stuck of course on the fascinating Bill Veeck section) and again found tale after tale of arrogance and pig-headedness on the part of the owners.  Now remember, of course the players are going to fight for every penny they can get.  THEY are not the ones with favored status under the law.  Indeed, they've been the ones historically screwed by this system.  They were the noble jousters, expected to perform under poor conditions for the good of the game.

MLB Owners were unbelievably slow to realize how and why their business was suffering in the 50's and 60's, blind to the NFL's increasingly successful model, and almost religiously opposed to  coming to grips with economic reality or to contemplate change.  Why?  Because of the inherent mentality that baseball is DIFFERENT, baseball is baseball, it is protected, all you have to do is play (no need to market, no need to address free agency, no need to cater to the fans).  Chapter 4 of Helyar's book describes it all.

The result:  selfishness and arrogance on a monumental scale.

And so, I think I've addressed most of your bullet-points in a round about way.

Addtionally:  

The all-star game is no longer a pure exhibition.  The Sox benefited from home-field advantage in the WS because the AL won the damn thing.  The reason we have this ridiculous set-up:  the tied game and Bud Selig's vacuous attempts to ameliorate a PR nightmare.  Failed leadership.

Strong commissioner:  In 1944 the owners decided to appoint someone they could control after the reign of Kennesaw Mountain Landis, who had to be named to restore integrity to the game (after the Black Sox scandal) and who demanded absolute power to act in the best interests of the game as a condition of his employment.  It hasn't been the same since.  Because of the inherent selfishness of the individual owners, who are ironically protected by the exemption Landis so favored, the absence of a strong (and obviously the owners have to voluntarily give someone this power) commissioner leads to deficient leadership dominated by factions of squabbling owners in a protected cartel.  It seems that the '94 strike provided a good opportunity to try the strong commissioner model again. I guess not.

Reinsdorf personally:  I'm with you.  I don't know him.  I'm sure he has his positive qualities.  Look, I'm all for Reinsdorf bringing us a championship.

However, from a historical perspective, baseball's ownership group has a conflict:  the law views them as the stewards of this hallowed national treasure and they haven't treated it as such;  instead they've treated it as their own private, privileged hunting ground, and this has led to obvious and continuing problems.  
Why else would they be called "Lords of the Realm?"

It is interesting, incidentally, how prominently the White Sox have figured into the history of the game:  Black Sox, Landis, Veeck, Reinsdorf, 1994 strike, etc.  

But the contradictions and paradoxes described above, and the beauty of a game that COULD on any day result in a Supreme Court creating an antitrust exemption, are part of what makes baseball baseball.  And I love baseball.  

Go Sox.

the marlins thing is what set me off to begin with.  the story of the marlins, who took 6 yrs to win as many WS as the Sox did in 88, has been pretty sordid.