I agree with what has already been mentioned- IS is most worthwhile if you plan on shooting a lot of video. If you're looking primarily at lenses for stills, then I have been very happy with the non-IS version. If money was no object, I'd probably consider an upgrade to the v2 IS, but the vast majority of the time, my shutter speed is fast enough to render IS useless. So do bear that in mind when choosing a 70-200. Oh, and the background blur/subject isolation you get at 200/2.8 is awesome, so don't be tempted by the f/4
As for a shorter lens, the 17-55 is great. If you plan on shooting video, and want IS in your 70-200, then you get IS with that lens, and a 2.8 max aperture. But, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is supposed to be a great lens also. Personally, I have found 17 more than wide enough for most uses- especially sports. I usually use my 70-200 for all the action, and then put on the 17-55 for candids and crowd shots when everything's all said and done. So I don't think a 10-xx lens should be an immediate consideration- 70-200, then a 24-70 or 17-55, and finally an ultra-wide IF you think you really want it.
again, just my 2 cents.