Selig is dealing with a difficult problem - how do you redistribute huge amounts of wealth to level the playing field somewhat without creating a salary cap that's so low it artificially restricts player salaries (which the players union would go crazy about).
But I think its arguable that they really haven't done much to affect the issue at all, they kind of just move the chips around the table. Revenue sharing is kind of toothless without forcing teams to spend that money on player salaries. Some teams like the Rays and the Pirates have routinely gotten enough in revenue sharing to cover their entire salary bases. Revenue sharing should not be designed to simply keep teams afloat or to allow teams to turn a profit - it's ludicrous that the Nats received revenue sharing (they won't under the new CBA) and turned profits.
Likewise, people get all upset over the new draft changes, but I really don't think it'll have much of an effect on the distribution of talent beyond leaching a few players out who would have signed for higher bonuses but now will choose to play other sports. (A) There will be a lessened incentive for players' agents to manipulate the draft by asking for sky-high bonuses and allowing their kids to move down the draft board to be signed by the Yankees or Red Sox for high first round money. Now, if you want a high first round bonus, you get drafted in the high first round, which keeps the best players with the worst-performing teams. (B) It's not like the rich teams weren't overspending in the draft as well. The Nationals were spending the most money in the draft because they had the first pick two straight years, but the Yankees and Red Sox also signed lots of players to overslot bonuses. Realistically, I think the changes are designed to fix a problem from a decade ago that no longer exists. Nearly all teams, large-market and small-market, see the draft as good value and overspend on it now. There just haven't been as many premium players falling down the board for signability as there used to be. What the changes do is marginalize multi-sport talents and hold down draft bonuses, but they probably don't change the distribution of talent.
No, by far the biggest help to small market teams is the ability to control players for their first 6 player years at an enormous discount on market price, as well as the exclusive ability to offer extensions beyond those first 6 years until the player reaches free agency. The response to any CBA changes is already showing itself - teams are going to sign more of their players to relatively team-friendly deals that buy out their most productive seasons. If you're a "small market" team, you don't really lose that much if you consistently control your talented players for 7 or 8 years, say from age 23-31. If most players run to the Yankees or Angels to chase one last huge contract in their early 30s, you're not losing all that much long-term (and maybe not in the short-term - ask the Cardinals if they regret not committing $250 million to Pujols right now). I'd think that the other response to CBA changes will be for more teams to slow down development curves ala the Phillies, where you really allow most players to play a year per level and bring them up at age 24-25 instead of 22-23 in order to maximize their MLB production in their first 6 seasons of team control.