Same here, except I would use a different type of language to express my sentiments :-)
For me it has always been a calculation of cost vs benefits. When I was younger, it was "Go to Boston, run around 2:30, spend $1000 (or more) and earn nothing" or "Stay home, run a local marathon, run around 2:30, spend next to nothing and earn $1000". Now 2:30 changed to 2:40+, and the earned cash is a few hundred they give for winning the masters", but still even if the earned cash was nothing, the local option still wins against Boston. I understand the argument about "the experience", but for me the fun of the experience was to try to keep my running cash-positive, which required a combination of training and management skills.
I suppose the way I saw it was that Boston qualifying time was 2:20 or possibly faster.
I would run Boston, though, if one of my kids had a shot at top 15 and I would be there anyway to support him/her.