Based on what your telling us...if there other rules relating to trades or their was discussion about this rule and why the stipulation was added, that becomes part of the "spirit of the rule" and may change my opinion.
Well, the problem was created when the 'trade picks' option was turned on during the season. Given the league has a "picks can only be traded for picks" stipulation, the only way to govern that is by having that option turned off during the season. Because as the rule reads, sure he could trade Ryan for Rodgers OR do a seperate trade of the picks. By rule, they can't be related, but who is going to judge that they are?
Now thankfully, in this case they are clearly related. One owner is trading Ryan and first rounder for Rodgers and a throw away pick. He would never trade Ryan for Rodgers straight up, and never trade a first for a 15th straight up. So if you seperated the two, they would never agree to it. So this trade should be disallowed because of the pick for pick stipulation - this was the exact scenario the "spirit of the rule" was created to avoid.
HOWEVER - the rule as it is written is unenforceable. Why? Because you have no way to manage verbal commitments. What if they made a less obvious player trade with a verbal agreement to make a trade of picks next offseason? So ultimately, that pick for pick stipulation needs to be abandoned next offseason. Either allow picks for players or go back to not allowing the trading of picks at all.