I am not very competent in that theory,because I was informed of it today 
From the PCT by Mario Alinei:
7.5.5 The problem of the Thracians: a new hypothesis
The reconstruction of the prehistoric context in which the Thracians slowly emerge has been attempted several times, and lastly by Hoddinott (1981), but in my opinion without noticeable novelties. Even the most recent discoveries, in fact, confirm what we alread know: the Thracian power is just one of the many manifestations of the new stratified societies and of the new elites of a military and superegional type which characterize Chalcolithic and Bronze, and the formation of which was triggered by the incursions of the kurgan groups and their successors, coming from the Asiatic steppes. In the new PCT vision, this twofold, but in itself meager result produces the following commentary: (A) we must keep in consideration that the immediate neighbors of the Thracians ancestors – whoever they were – were these intrusive kurgan groups; and (B) in the light of the equation of the kurgan people with the Turkic group, the existence of the Turkic Thrace of historical times, the Turkic original character of the Bulgarians, and the so many aspects of the close relationship bwetween Anatolia, the Agean Sea and the Balkans become much more relevant than we have suspected until now (see chapter III of Alinei 2000). A single example: the typical shape of the sica, the national weapon of the Thracians (a knife with a curved blade and a sharp point, similar to a zanna di cinghiale (cp. Plinius H.N. XII 1: “apri dentium sicas”, and see the illustration in Rich 1869), used by Thracian gladiators in Rome, is typical of centro-Asiatic metallurgy.
Another commentary is triggered by Hoddinott’s conclusion, which identifies the earliest sure manifestation of the Thracians in the Bronze Age Carpatian culture of Otomani-Wietenberg (in Transylvania, Hungary, Eastern Slovakia). According to the most recent research, this culture represents a continuation of the Baden and Vuиedol cultures, and through the latter, is connected to the steppe cultures (see above and cp. for example DP s.v. Vuиedol). In the light of the preceding remarks, then, on one hand we could conclude that also Thracians underwent the same Turkic influences as most other Southern Slavic languages; on the other – as both Baden and Vuиedol in the framework of the PCT can be read as Slavophone cultures, we could advance the hypothesis that the Thacianas were a Slavic group, which would have been subject to stronger Turkic influences than the other Slavic languages, and eventually extinguished.
A final remark: Herodotus, as is known, describes the Thracians as the most numerous people after the Indians. Mallory comments that it is a “sad irony” they “have left no modern descendant of their language” (Mallory 1989, 72). But is it really so? First of all, if it is hard to admit that a numerous people might completely extinguish, it is even less likely that this pre-existing people would have left no traces in the archaeological record. And since, as we have seen, the demographic explosion of the Slavs must be placed in Neolithic, we could then advance the hypothesis that Thracians was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, owing to the fact the Thracians were one of the most powerful and representative elites of Slavic speaking Eastern Europe, seen with Herodotus’ inevitably colonialist eyes. In a first approximation, then, the Thracians would appear to be a Southern Slavic geo-variational group, out of which came a Bronze age elite, first dominating then extinguished.
This hypothesis could be further developed and refined in the light of the results of research on the Thracian language which, with the caution due to the scarcity of materials, can be so summarized:
(1) Thracian is an IE satem language, like Baltic and Slavic;
(2) as discovered by Trubaиev (see above), Thracian place names show a surprising similarity with the Baltic ones;
(3) in some cases, however, Thracian affinities seem stronger with Slavic: the Thr. place-name suffix -dizos e -diza, for example, to which the meaning of ‘fortress’ has been attributed on the basis of the comparison with Gr. teĩkhos ‘wall’ (IEW 244), has a much closer counterpart in the metathetic forms of OSl. ziћdoã, zydati ‘to build’ zydŭ, zidŭ ‘wall’, than in the Baltic ones (also methatetic), meaning ‘to form’. And the vocalism of the Thr. river name Stry¤mōn and place name Stry¤mē seems closer to Pol. strumieс ‘brook’ and OSlav. struja ‘stream’ than to Latv stràume ‘stream’ (IEW 1003).
The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts (following the geolinguistic well-known rule, according to which the center innovates, and the periphery preserves).
Page 26:
The areal asymetry of the Slavic areal distribution
"Now from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison d' ethre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense.
Needless to say, this simple remark demolishes the whole construction of the Slavic homeland in Middle Eastern Europe and of Slavic migration in traditional terms, as well as all of its corollaries."
Page 32.
The Slavic ethnogenesis in the PCT
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
"When the glacial cap covered North-Eastern Europe (around 25000 BC, my note), the Northern frontier of the Uralic as well as of the Balto-Slavic groups of the North must have been somewhere in the Middle Eastern Europe; their Southern frontier, however, would have still be formed by the Black sea, the Greek peninsula and the Adriatic."
Page 33
" The Slavic postglacial area (11000 - 6500 BC, my note) would then form a kind of triangle, the Southern corner of which would correspond to Macedonia, the western frontier of which would pass along the Italid Dalmatia, and delimit the rest of ex-Yugoslavia, Hungary, ex-Czechoslovakia, and southern Poland, and the Eastern frontier of which would delimit Bulgaria, Romania, Western Ukraine, Belorussia and parts of Middle Russia."
Also:
http://www.maknews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=315
http://www.continuitas.com/
http://www.continuitas.com/interdisciplinary.pdf
From the PCT by Mario Alinei:
7.5.5 The problem of the Thracians: a new hypothesis
The reconstruction of the prehistoric context in which the Thracians slowly emerge has been attempted several times, and lastly by Hoddinott (1981), but in my opinion without noticeable novelties. Even the most recent discoveries, in fact, confirm what we alread know: the Thracian power is just one of the many manifestations of the new stratified societies and of the new elites of a military and superegional type which characterize Chalcolithic and Bronze, and the formation of which was triggered by the incursions of the kurgan groups and their successors, coming from the Asiatic steppes. In the new PCT vision, this twofold, but in itself meager result produces the following commentary: (A) we must keep in consideration that the immediate neighbors of the Thracians ancestors – whoever they were – were these intrusive kurgan groups; and (B) in the light of the equation of the kurgan people with the Turkic group, the existence of the Turkic Thrace of historical times, the Turkic original character of the Bulgarians, and the so many aspects of the close relationship bwetween Anatolia, the Agean Sea and the Balkans become much more relevant than we have suspected until now (see chapter III of Alinei 2000). A single example: the typical shape of the sica, the national weapon of the Thracians (a knife with a curved blade and a sharp point, similar to a zanna di cinghiale (cp. Plinius H.N. XII 1: “apri dentium sicas”, and see the illustration in Rich 1869), used by Thracian gladiators in Rome, is typical of centro-Asiatic metallurgy.
Another commentary is triggered by Hoddinott’s conclusion, which identifies the earliest sure manifestation of the Thracians in the Bronze Age Carpatian culture of Otomani-Wietenberg (in Transylvania, Hungary, Eastern Slovakia). According to the most recent research, this culture represents a continuation of the Baden and Vuиedol cultures, and through the latter, is connected to the steppe cultures (see above and cp. for example DP s.v. Vuиedol). In the light of the preceding remarks, then, on one hand we could conclude that also Thracians underwent the same Turkic influences as most other Southern Slavic languages; on the other – as both Baden and Vuиedol in the framework of the PCT can be read as Slavophone cultures, we could advance the hypothesis that the Thacianas were a Slavic group, which would have been subject to stronger Turkic influences than the other Slavic languages, and eventually extinguished.
A final remark: Herodotus, as is known, describes the Thracians as the most numerous people after the Indians. Mallory comments that it is a “sad irony” they “have left no modern descendant of their language” (Mallory 1989, 72). But is it really so? First of all, if it is hard to admit that a numerous people might completely extinguish, it is even less likely that this pre-existing people would have left no traces in the archaeological record. And since, as we have seen, the demographic explosion of the Slavs must be placed in Neolithic, we could then advance the hypothesis that Thracians was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, owing to the fact the Thracians were one of the most powerful and representative elites of Slavic speaking Eastern Europe, seen with Herodotus’ inevitably colonialist eyes. In a first approximation, then, the Thracians would appear to be a Southern Slavic geo-variational group, out of which came a Bronze age elite, first dominating then extinguished.
This hypothesis could be further developed and refined in the light of the results of research on the Thracian language which, with the caution due to the scarcity of materials, can be so summarized:
(1) Thracian is an IE satem language, like Baltic and Slavic;
(2) as discovered by Trubaиev (see above), Thracian place names show a surprising similarity with the Baltic ones;
(3) in some cases, however, Thracian affinities seem stronger with Slavic: the Thr. place-name suffix -dizos e -diza, for example, to which the meaning of ‘fortress’ has been attributed on the basis of the comparison with Gr. teĩkhos ‘wall’ (IEW 244), has a much closer counterpart in the metathetic forms of OSl. ziћdoã, zydati ‘to build’ zydŭ, zidŭ ‘wall’, than in the Baltic ones (also methatetic), meaning ‘to form’. And the vocalism of the Thr. river name Stry¤mōn and place name Stry¤mē seems closer to Pol. strumieс ‘brook’ and OSlav. struja ‘stream’ than to Latv stràume ‘stream’ (IEW 1003).
The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts (following the geolinguistic well-known rule, according to which the center innovates, and the periphery preserves).
Page 26:
The areal asymetry of the Slavic areal distribution
"Now from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison d' ethre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense.
Needless to say, this simple remark demolishes the whole construction of the Slavic homeland in Middle Eastern Europe and of Slavic migration in traditional terms, as well as all of its corollaries."
Page 32.
The Slavic ethnogenesis in the PCT
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
"When the glacial cap covered North-Eastern Europe (around 25000 BC, my note), the Northern frontier of the Uralic as well as of the Balto-Slavic groups of the North must have been somewhere in the Middle Eastern Europe; their Southern frontier, however, would have still be formed by the Black sea, the Greek peninsula and the Adriatic."
Page 33
" The Slavic postglacial area (11000 - 6500 BC, my note) would then form a kind of triangle, the Southern corner of which would correspond to Macedonia, the western frontier of which would pass along the Italid Dalmatia, and delimit the rest of ex-Yugoslavia, Hungary, ex-Czechoslovakia, and southern Poland, and the Eastern frontier of which would delimit Bulgaria, Romania, Western Ukraine, Belorussia and parts of Middle Russia."
Also:
http://www.maknews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=315
http://www.continuitas.com/
http://www.continuitas.com/interdisciplinary.pdf
: 
