I think there is a distinction though it practice the results of the two processes tend to be difficult to completely separate.
For example, the talent acquired through this year's draft and from the past three international signing periods could have been drafted and signed whether or not we traded away Heyward, Justin, Gattis and Kimbrel. For the most part. But not completely since some of the draft picks were acquired by trade.
The decision about blowing past the slot limits in the next signing period could have been taken whether or not we had punted on 2015. Again, there is a sublte link in the sense the financial penalties will be held down by the size of our slots for next year.
Where there will be a big difference is in next year's draft, where we will be drafting much higher as a result of punting.
Why do I raise this question? Well it seems to me that the best and most exciting portion of the talent influx came from the draft and international signings rather than the players we picked up via trades. I would make the case that punting has accelerated our rebuild only slightly (though this might change if we get a franchise player in next year's draft). It does not look like we will have a really exciting championship caliber team until the current group of players age 17 or 18 start to reach the majors (Allard, Soroka, Albies, Riley, Yepez, Acuna, Herbert, etc). Some of the guys we picked up via trade will undoubtedly be around to contribute but they in all likelihood be supporting players rather than foundational players.