Doughnutman:
I don't know if you had a chance to watch the state LL tournament, but the talent was impressive. And it was all rec ball. And 95 percent of those all stars (or more) will go onto Babe Ruth and various travel teams (more likely a combination of both). Later, in high school, if they are lucky (and as the number of teams contracts) they will play for JO teams, Don Mattingly teams and ultimately Connie Mack teams (which can be classified as rec in the purest sense of the word in that they do not travel to bunches of tournaments that in the end are meaningless).
So, you are clearly wrong when you say that 99 percent of players who play rec (for a long time) will never play high school ball. There would be no high school ball (at least in Arizona) if that were the case.
But more importantly, the argument here is not travel vs. rec. It is at what point is higher competition important. And the contention by me and Daque is that the level of competition does not much matter until the field gets bigger.
I am guessing you are dealing either with your oldest son or your first son to go this route. What I can tell you is that when it is all over, you will be surprised by how you think differently than compared to how you think now (whatever that is).
I will also tell you that high school ball -- both summer and in-season -- is very likely to be very different than what you are anticipating.