I'd say that a $150 6600GT is as good a value as a $120 9800P, considering the GT has two good games and component output. It's also slightly faster, on average, according to most of the benchmarks I've read. Then there's SM3 and at least the chance to see HDR effects, if not at amazing framerates. They're both essentially eight pipeline cards, just the GT's core is running 120MHz faster. That has to count for something in games, especially in newer, more shader-intensive ones.
If you don't care for the games or HDTV, then you're looking at a $30 premium for SM3, HDR, and slightly faster performance. I'd just scrimp and save an extra few weeks and go for it.
I'm running a 9800P myself, though, and it's still a nice card. It's bottlenecked by my 2400+ and its anemic 256kB cache and PC2100 bandwidth, actually.
Edit: Hmm, why isn't the 9250 good for BF2? It's PS1.4, and I thought that was the minimum to get in the door? Maybe it's too slow to be worthwhile.