I think there is too much information and a bit of confusion is no doubt setting in. The 18-200 is a very popular general purpose lens for travel where people only want to take one lens and not change it during a trip. But it is expensive for the quality of images it can produce. Optically, you would be just as well off with the much cheaper 18-105vr that comes as the kit lens on many D7000 packages. It might be better in many focal lengths but used for about $200-250 since there are so many of them produced. All the 18-xxx lenses are similar in optical quality, none much different in output. All are decent lenses, particularly for good light outdoors. Nikon does not make a bad lens. For indoors available light shooting, it is hard to beat the $220 35 1.8. It is optically superior to any of the 18-xxx super zooms and much more sensitive to light. Zooming however is with your feet rather than a zoom ring on the lens. If indoors shots are going to be an important part of your shooting, I would suggest investing in a speed-light, a SB700 for example and investing some time in learning how to use it well. Available light photography is not as easy to produce great results as assumed and the vast majority of images you have seen that you admired used strobe or speed-lights but done in a way not to look "flash". With well done flash photography, the time of day, or color of the ambient light will not be in control of whether you can take the shot, you will be in control of the most important element in photography....light. There is a myth that flash light bothers babies and animals. It is so fast that neither seems to notice however, a sensitive cat for example will not give any indication that a bright light flashed for 1/10,000 of a second, nor will a baby. Our systems just do not react fast enough to even transmit the information fully to the brain and process it for awareness. We sense it but unless right in your face you are only barely aware of the flash. Proper use of it would have the light highly diffused anyway so the intensity will be low as seen by your eyes. Good light trumps good lenses every time. And is much cheaper. Good light allows use of lower cost lenses, for example, a well shoot image with a 18-105 kit lens is going to have a total optical advantage over a high end lens in less desirable ambient light. I have $10,000 in lenses and they do not overcome poor light the way a $300 SB700 does.
Lenses are long term investments. So do not be tempted to buy stepping stone lenses, get what you can afford that fits in a long term goal. Any of the low cost primes, 35 AF0S 1.8, 50 AF-S 1.8, 85 AF-S 1.8 for example will be useful no matter where your photography takes you in the future, long after you have forgotten which camera you bought them for. Why? They are no nonsense optically great little lenses that will work on anything you ever get in the future. A best plan would include the AF-S or G models of each of those, they are better, faster and sharper than their D versions.
Unless you know you are not going to expand your interest in photography I would suggest that investing in a general purpose decent but not great lens like the 18-200 is going to waste money that would be better directed to lenses or accessories that you WILL keep and use for a long time. For the price of the 18-200 you could get a SB700, a 35 1.8 and a 50 1.8. For a little more, a SB700, 35 1.8 and a 85 1.8 which would result in a kit that would be highly capable for all types of subjects in all sorts of lighting conditions. The 85 1.8 is a great portrait lens that is suitable for professional use but costs far less than other traditional portrait lenses. The 35 would be a great general purpose lens for life style shots, vacation type images, whole body portraits, family gatherings etc. Any of those 3 low cost lenses would be superior to the 18-200 in sharpness, light sensitivity, color, contrast, distortion and speed.
The D7000 is the best crop sensor camera in the world. Good luck and have fun. Stan St Petersburg Russia