Any given, specific sanctions? Not likely. But sanctions in general? Moves like this are not made haphazardly. There would have to have been some planning involved, and two things would have been obvious - the West wouldn't just do nothing, and the West wouldn't resort to military force as long as things went to plan. That leaves witty back-and-forth diplomatic banter and economic sanctions, and the two work well together.
The general gist of any sanctions would also be fairly apparent to proficient economists - Europe can't just up and close off its own metaphorical oxygen supply, so the primary method that would have been effective - refusing to buy Russian hydrocarbons - is plainly not feasible in any sort of short term. Any other means of effecting Russia economically would have to be refusing it more minor trades and services - which can in turn be used to drive for independence from such trades and services, because the capacity was always there and there was simply no need.
I'm not saying everything was planned out in advance - but if the original plan was to use the one-time opportunity that unrest in Crimea provided, and stop there without doing anything else, the repercussions from doing so would have been at least partially predictable. There's only so many ways NATO, the EU, and the US can react to such an event, and there are analysts far better than me out there to see them.
Speaking of sanctions, we might as well start a new Skippy's List, except with the list of things Barack Obama is now prohibited from doing in various cities in Russia. Like using public transportation, entering some stores and restaurants, etc. I haven't personally seen any around here, and many of the ones the news reported on could likely be typical works of Internet artisans, but a few definitely seem to be true, and I personally like that kind of humorous response.