The only thing needed is a staticization of their website, which any CMS they had could very easily be set up to do. Look at the archives of NYT, they're barebone pages that preserve the content without any dynamic areas.
Server load at that scale is measured in single-digit dollars per month, and bandwidth _might_ require two pipes with enough images being loaded. Multiply by 20 for replication and latency issues, and you're still only talking $200/month.
As a ballpark, even bad ad impressions bring in $10/mille, maybe $1/mille for something unintrusive. Does Anandtech get more than 200k impressions per month? If we're talking about a "hundreds of thousands of requests per minute" scale then I would certainly hope so.
Users coming direct from organic search to an article tends to have the best: they’re more likely to be buyers and/or find the ads interesting.
Main downside with ads on tech sites is their users block ads a lot.
Even if you have a server doing something 100k rpm isn't insane amount of traffic to handle. It requires a relatively modest server.