Offseason Grades from Fox Sports:

If I've learned anything about baseball, it's that it's hard to predict anything.  Can you name one baseball writer who picked the White Sox to win it all last off-season?  In fact, most of them, myself included, were to busy ripping them for trading Lee for Podsednik.  That was still a bad move, although not as bad as I originally thought because the cost savings allowed them to keep their starting rotation together and those guys jelled into a world series champion.

It just doesn't matter.  It will all be settled on the field.  There will be time for second-guessing later.

"AL CENTRAL: ...But the pick here is Chicago. The Pale Hose have some pop in that offense, and their pitching is better than you think....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/michael_bradley/03/31/baseball.predictions/1.html

Rob Neyer of ESPN picked the White Sox as well (though ESPN as a whole was Twins heavy):

"Rob Neyer : Why did I predict that the White Sox would beat out the Twins? Because I guessed that Dustin Hermanson, who came into the season with 22 saves and a 4.31 ERA, would have 30 saves and a 1.60 ERA a couple of weeks into August. Because I prognosticated that relievers Cliff Politte and Neal Cotts would both be lights-out. Because I figured that Jon Garland would halve his walk rate, and that Jose Contreras would shave a run-and-a-half from his 2004 ERA. It was easy, really."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2135056

I have some 15 different articles (well, actually about 23, but eight of them aren't considered writers from any major paper or outlet so I don't include them) projecting the White Sox to win the Al Central.  Two of them pick the White Sox to go to the World Series.  One of them picked the White Sox to win.

Above are two recognizable sources to start with.  I can go through the whole prolonged process of posting all the articles if needed.  But these two examples should at least give you a taste of what I'm talking about.

"Out of nowhere" my rear end....

Nobody, that I know of, picked the Royals.  But nobody thought the White Sox were the KC Royals either.  And anyone who thinks the Cubs are the equivalent of the KC Royals is a raving idiot.

Last off-season the White Sox were considered one of three teams that could reasonably win the AL Central, with the Twins as the clear favorite and the Indians as the trendy second pick.  The White Sox were mentioned as the other possibility.  Sound familiar?

Few thought they would make the World Series because almost everyone picked from either the Boston/New York or Oakland/Los Angeles Nexis.  A few contrarians picked the Twins.  But there was no serious support for the White Sox, and to pretend otherwise is revisionism.  ONE out of NINETEEN ESPN experts (Neyer, whom you mentioned) picked the White Sox to win the division.  And he didn't pick them to even make the World Series.

Finally, I'm not comparing the White Sox to the Cubs.  They are built very differently and honestly, I think the Sox got very lucky last season.  My point, which everyone seems to ignore, is that we just shouldn't put a lot of stock in these off-season predictions because, in aggregate, they aren't worth much.  And no one can consistently tell you which ones are right and which are wrong.

The problem is, much like with scouts, professional baseball journalists are predictors.  Neither one is guaranteed right, but you tend to take the majority opinion of said groups as good information.  They are around sources we'll never be; they have inside info we'll never have, in many cases.

Why is everybody high on Felix Pie, et al? What has he ever done in the big leagues to make us excited?  Nothing.  But we put stock in the journalists' reports and scouts' analyses that we should expect big things from him.  It's nothing more than predictions, yet we take them seriously.

Same goes with pro baseball writers.  Are they gospel?  No more than scouts are.  But they get more right than wrong about who will contend and who won't.

Once again, I need to qualify my statements by saying that I will root and hope when all hope and chance is gone.  I love my Cubs, period.  But we do have to face the fact that the 2006 Cubs are not as highly regarded as postseason contenders as the 2005 White Sox were.  And it's not because everybody is stupid, or hates the Cubs, or has no idea what they're talking about.

Yes, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays could win the World Series this year, but it's not likely.  And yes, the Cubs could be in the postseason in 2006, but it's not likely.  I'd rather be in the "likely" column, personally, than the "well..........................look at the White Sox!...."  column.

Barring an unexpected offensive upgrade before Spring Training, I cannot see this team pulling a Buster Douglas.  Most of the baseball writers I have read hold much of the same opinion.  Is it a guarantee that the Cubs won't win the World Series?  No.  But it is a realistic snapshot of their chances when everyone around baseball and in baseball media sees them staying home in October.

We don't have to put a lot of stock in what baseball writers have said.  But I will sure as heck put more stock in the majority opinion of baseball writers than I will the simple, raw hope of coming out-of-nowhere and shocking the world.  Yes, you truly never know "for sure;" but MOST of the time, you do know.